Skip to main content

Full text of "FjordmanEssays"

See other formats


When danes pay danegeld - dealing with islam in scandinavia 3 

The war against swedes 7 

Electing a new people: the leftist - islamic alliance 10 

People worry about islam, its leaders about islamophobia 1 8 

Is the nation state obsolete? 23 

Why the EU needs to be destroyed, and soon 32 

In praise of the first and second amendments 39 

The welfare state is dead, long live the welfare state 43 

How the feminists' "war against boys" paved the way for islam 5 1 

Why we cannot rely on moderate muslims 59 

What is the nature of multiculturalism? 68 

Human rights fundamentalism, NGOistan and the multicultural industry 72 

Who are we, who are our enemies - the cost of historical amnesia 77 

Fjordman: why the European Union must be dismantled 83 

The background of multiculturalism 86 

Why the future may not belong to islam 88 

How the west was lost 92 

Marxism or decadence?_the cause of western weakness 96 

How feminism leads to the oppression of women 101 

Why europeans should support Israel 104 

Muslim violence - crime or jihad? 106 

Native revolt: a European Declaration of Independence 112 

The migration flood 118 

What do we fight for? 1 22 

A communism for the 21st century 126 

The flaws of the western man 132 

What is the cause of low birth-rates? 137 

Why transnational multiculturalism is a totalitarian ideology 140 

Why the European Union must go 143 

A culture of lies 148 

The death of Sweden 151 

How the west lost the cold war 155 

The EU wants to increase muslim immigration and internet censorship 162 

The age of white masochism 164 

Fjordman: the European Union and the islamization of Europe 174 

The birth of the Eurabian Empire 178 


The causes of anti-semitism: preliminary discussions 180 

The greatest betrayal in history 1 84 

Fjordman on "moderate islam" 187 

Europe's decline - hurrah! we capitulate! 196 

The self-defeat of the United States 1 97 

Britain: from parliament to police state 198 

Race, immigration, and rapein Sweden 201 

Fjordman asks: Why Obama but not Osama? 202 

IQ and warfare 203 

Who won the cold war? 206 

The coming crash 208 

Surviving the coming crash 210 

Atlas exclusive Fjordman: on the collapsing us dollar 215 

Fjordman - The first five years 218 

Democracy and universalism 220 

Book review: Wafa Sultan's "a god who hates" 224 

The European Union and "beautiful" minarets 227 

Can we coexist with the left? 230 

How to destroy a people through immigration 233 

Flaws of democracy 234 

Assisted suicide 237 

On the illusion of a moderate islam 238 

Swedish absurdity 248 

A few reasons for cautious optimism 249 

Book review: "The perils of diversity" 25 1 

Why islam must be expelled from the west 262 

The curious civilization 267 

The Chinese and the irrational 270 

Preparing for Ragnarok 277 

When treason becomes the norm: why the proposition nation, and not islam, is our .„„ 
primary enemy 

Thoghts on the recent atrocities 289 

Fjordman lives on 291 

What is wrong with the western elites 294 

Islamophile illusions 298 

People like Fjordman 300 

Twilight or dawn? 302 

Europe is the sick man of the world 303 


When danes pay danegeld - dealing with islam in Scandinavia 

2006-03-17 00:36 

One thousand years ago Scandinavians were the barbarians of Europe, spreading fear and extracting 
"Danegeld" from their more civilized neighbors. In the 21st century Scandinavians are peaceful and 
soft-spoken, and the roles seem to have been reversed with certain newly arrived immigrants. There 
are claims that immigration costs Sweden 40 to 50 billion Swedish kroner every year, perhaps even 
several hundred billions, and has greatly contributed to bringing the Swedish welfare state to the 
brink of bankruptcy. 

In Denmark right-wing politicians are already debating the threat of immigrant "welfare tourists," 
should the Swedish system collapse. In Norway almost half of all children with a non- Western 
background claim social security benefits. This is ten times the rate of the native population. A 
Danish commission concluded that Denmark could save 50 billion kroner every year by 2040 if it 
shut the door to third world immigration. At the same time, statistics indicate that Scandinavians 
will become a minority in their own countries within a couple of generations, if the current trends 
continue. While their political elites insist that immigration is "good for the economy," 
Scandinavians are in reality funding their own colonization. 

Although the cost of welfare is significant, it pales in comparison to the price paid through rapidly 
declining social harmony and increasing insecurity caused by Muslim immigration. Some of the 
increase in insecurity is due to the rise of mafia groups and organized crime, but most is mainly due 
to terror threats and intimidation of critics of Islam and Muslim immigration. 

It is true that the Scandinavian countries have much in common, but the differences that do exist 
should not be underestimated. It was no coincidence that the issue with the Muhammad cartoons 
started in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, as Denmark is probably the one Western nation 
where the debate surrounding Muslim immigration is most mainstream and open. Prime Minister 
Anders Fogh Rasmussen's centre-right government has imposed some of the toughest regulations in 
the EU on asylum seekers. 

Unfortunately, this does not mean that Denmark's problems are over. In 2005 attackers set fire to 
the immigration minister's car. A leftist group calling itself "Beatte Without Borders" said it carried 
out the attack, condemning the government's "racist immigration policies." Muslim extremists have 
declared that the Danish PM and Defense Minister are legitimate terror targets because of 
Denmark's participation in Iraq. Members of Denmark's moderate Muslim community say they are 
reluctant to speak out with critical observations of their religion, fearing social isolation, threats and 
violence, and a Danish Jew was even attacked for reading from the Koran. 

Imam Abu Laban was one of the prime movers in making the cartoons a major international issue: 
"We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons 
were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," Abu Laban said. 
He has earlier tried to implement sharia practices in Denmark. In one prominent case, two men were 
killed in a row involving a group of second generation immigrants in Copenhagen. According to 
Imam Abu Laban the thirst for revenge could be cooled if 200,000 kroner in "blood money" were 
paid to the victims' families. The 200,000 Danish kroner is approximately the value of 100 camels, 
the stipulated sharia price for a Muslim man's life. 

Meanwhile, there is growing fear amongst politicians that the immigrant environment in the 
Norrebro area in Copenhagen, which has been unofficially declared an "Islamic state" by some of 
its residents, is developing into a parallel society where ancient traditions threaten Danish law. 
Professor of Islamic studies Mehdi Mozaffari tells of how he and thousands of others have fled 
burkas, sharia, blood money, muftis and Islamism in the Middle East, only to witness the same beast 
rear its ugly head in Europe. And he warns of the consequences: "Historical experience has shown 

that those whom people fear will win, eventually. We saw this in Nazi Germany. There were too 
many Nazis, and people were scared. I fear that this is where we are heading, once more." 

The most immediate victims of this climate of fear are Muslim women. A Pakistani man in 
Denmark recently murdered his sister in the street outside a train station because she had married a 
man against her family's orders. Meanwhile, Muslims in Denmark do not hesitate to exercise their 
right to free speech. In 2004 a leading Danish mufti said that Danish women not wearing the veil 
"were asking for rape," a comment seemingly less offensive to the Muslim community than a few 
cartoons. The twelve Muhammad cartoonists now live underground and with police protection. 

In Norway Bruce Bawer, the author of the recent book While Europe Slept, tells on his website of 
the capitulation of Velbjorn Selbekk, the editor of the tiny Christian periodical Magazinet - the first 
publication to reprint the now famous Muhammed cartoons. He had firmly resisted pressure by 
Muslim extremists (who made death threats) and by the Norwegian establishment. But then 
Norway's Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion hastily called a press conference at a major 
government office building in Oslo. There Selbekk issued an abject apology for reprinting the 
cartoons. At his side, accepting his act of contrition on behalf of 46 Muslim organizations and 
asking that all threats now be withdrawn, was Mohammed Hamdan, head of Norway's Islamic 
Council. In attendance were members of the Norwegian cabinet and the largest assemblage of 
imams in Norway's history. It was a picture right out of a sharia courtroom, with the Muslim leader 
declaring Selbekk to be henceforth under his protection. 

Two representatives from the Islamic Council for Norway and a senior pastor representing Oslo's 
bishop then visited Qatar, where they were to meet the top Muslim leader Dr Yusuf Al Qaradawi. 
The trip, partially funded by the Norwegian authorities, was a public relations effort on the part of 
Norway, which had suddenly found itself the target of Muslim outrage because the cartoons that 
originated in Denmark were reprinted in a Norwegian publication. Qaradawi has supported suicide 
bombings, and has publicly bragged about how "Islam will conquer Europe." The "moderate" 
Sheikh Qaradawi was not satisfied with the apology from the Norwegian editor who printed the 
Muhammad cartoons. He wanted to dictate that Norway adopt Islamic blasphemy laws. Qaradawi's 
website IslamOnline later claimed that Norway agreed to do this, which is totally untrue. Local 
Muslims led by the lawyer Abid Q. Raja, however, have pushed for such an option: "The point is 
not to restrict freedom of speech but to give it direction so that weak groups do not feel insulted or 
mocked. If we do nothing the differences within Norwegian society will increase in the future." 

Mullah Krekar, the former leader of the Islamic terror group Ansar al-Islam, still lives in Norway, 
even though he has pretty much openly threatened the country with terror attacks and has called 
Osama bin Laden "the jewel of Islam." At the same time, Krekar denies he is a threat to national 
security in Norway. "I only know five streets in Oslo," he said. "How can I be a threat?" He has 
written a book about himself, which was published by a man called William Nygaard, who was shot 
at and almost killed in the early 90s for having published the Norwegian translation of Salman 
Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses. A Norwegian NGO called the Freedom of Expression Fund 
supports the translation and publication of bin Laden's speeches. 

Meanwhile the Norwegian translation of Oriana Fallaci's latest book remains unpublished in 
Norway, even though her two previous books about Islam and the West sold in large numbers. 
FOMI, a Norwegian anti-Islamic website, was recently charged with "racism and spreading 
Islamophobia" for translating an article from Frontpage Magazine, with comments, about a Muslim 
rape wave in the West. The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just over twenty 
years, parallel with Muslim immigration. 

In 2005 Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, passed a new Discrimination Act. The act says in 
pretty clear words that in cases of suspected direct or indirect discrimination based on religion or 
ethnicity, native Norwegians are guilty until proven otherwise. The immigration spokesman for the 
right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of ordinary, 
law-abiding Norwegian citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay 

compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they did 
not do. In 2005 the Norwegian police issued a mobile security alarm to Progress Party leader Carl I. 
Hagen. Hagen had criticized Islam, and could see no similarity with the concept of morality and 
justice found in Christianity Hagen also said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will 
succumb to Islam next. He feels that Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads 
into Europe. In an unprecedented step, a group of Muslim ambassadors to Norway blasted Carl I. 
Hagen in a letter to the newspaper Aftenposten, claiming that he had offended 1.3 billion Muslims 
around the world. Other Norwegian politicians quickly caved in and condemned Hagen. 

Unidentified assailants fired shots at an Oslo restaurant owned by the family of a Pakistani-born 
female comedienne who has achieved prominence for lampooning conservative Islam. The 
comedienne, Shabana Rehman, described the incident as "an appalling act of terror" and said it 
would not deter her from continuing her work. Samira Munir, a Norwegian politician of Pakistani 
origin, was found dead under suspicious circumstances at a train station outside Oslo in November 
2005. She had received death threats many times from the Pakistani community in Norway because 
of her courageous fight for the rights of Muslim immigrant women, and for banning hijab, the 
Islamic veil. The leader of the Socialist Left party and now Norway's Minister of Finance, Kristin 
Halvorsen, praised all the "blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the 
country" when she started the party's election campaign in the Pakistani countryside in 2005. 

If the reaction of the Norwegian authorities to the cartoon case has been weak, that of the Swedish 
government has been downright appalling. The ruling Social Democratic party went to the drastic 
length of closing down the website of a competing political party that featured a Muhammad 
cartoon online. Sweden, an extremely authoritarian country, has national elections this year. 
Probably no other Western nation has more problems with, yet less debate about Muslim 
immigration than Sweden, and the only thing the elites are doing about this is demonizing 
neighboring Denmark for "xenophobia." The Swedish security services (Sapo), in collusion with 
Foreign Minister Leila Freivalds, forced the website SD-Kuriren offline for publishing the Jyllands- 
Posten cartoons. SD-Kuriren is the house publication of the hard-right Swedish Democrats. 
Freivalds stated that "it is terrible that a small group of extremists are exposing Swedes to danger 
[by reprinting the cartoons]." The party's secretary, Bjorn Soder, says the site has been reopened by 
moving it to another server, although the pictures of Muhammad have been removed. The Sweden 
Democrats and SD-Kuriren received threats after the publication of the pictures. Violent assaults 
and life threatening attacks against members of the Swedish Democrats, by Muslims or "anti- 
Fascists," have taken place many times, but are rarely mentioned in the media. No dissent is 
tolerated in Sweden. 

Jonathan Friedman is a New York Jew, now living with his Swedish wife in the southern Swedish 
city of Malmo where he teaches socio-anthropology. According to him, "no debate about 
immigration policies is possible, the subject is simply avoided. Sweden has such a close connection 
between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. The political class is closed, 
isolated." Friedman thinks circumstances in Sweden are special also because Sweden has a long 
tradition of maintaining a correct surface. Two Swedish girls were sent home from school for 
wearing sweaters showing a tiny Swedish flag. The headmaster was concerned that this might be 
deemed offensive by some immigrants. Helle Klein, political editor of the newspaper Aftonbladet, 
boasts: "If the debate is going to be about whether there are problems with immigrants, we don't 
want it." Hans Bergstrom, former editor-in-chief of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, 
worries that Sweden has become "a one-party state." 

In a sermon at Filadelfia church in Stockholm in March 2005 the Norwegian celebrity evangelist 
preacher Runar Sogaard, repeated his declaration that Muhammad was "a confused pedophile" 
since his wives included a girl aged nine years old. Sogaard was placed under police protection after 
receiving death threats. The sermon triggered fears of a religious war in Sweden. Muslim radicals 
posted a very explicit threat to launch a wave of terrorist attacks against Sweden for the "insult." In 
February 2005 a Swedish museum removed an erotic painting plastered with verses from the Koran 

from an exhibition about AIDS. Some vocal members of the Muslim community launched a letter- 
writing campaign that resulted in hundreds of e-mails, among them messages along the lines of 
"remember what happened in Holland." The museum, however, insisted that the "threats" it 
received had nothing to do with the removal of the work. At the same time, the Swedish historian of 
religion Matthias Gardell claims that Islamophobia is perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in 
the Western world today. The Swedish writer and leftist intellectual Jan Guillou has stated that the 
rhetoric employed by the Nazis against Jews is now used to target Muslims. In Sweden an anti- 
Semitic crime is reported to the police once every three days. The Jewish congregations in the 
major cities of Stockholm, Goteborg and Malmo are forced to spend up to 25 percent of their 
membership fees on security and hired guards. Most of these hate crimes are perpetrated by 

Just as the country is in the midst of the worst crime wave in modern history, with a desperately 
underfunded police force, the Swedish Social Democrats have announced that cheaper public dental 
care would be a major issue in this year's election campaigns. There could hardly be a better 
symbol of Europe's love affair with the welfare state and "social security" in an age where physical 
security is rapidly disappearing through runaway Muslim immigration. "Eurabia: You may get your 
teeth kicked in, but at least you have cheap dental care" could become the slogan for the entire 

Scandinavians, too, were once involved in blood feuds and fanaticism. That time is called the 
Viking Age, and we left it behind a thousand years ago, as Muslims should have done. We have no 
particular urge to return to being a primitive tribal society. Yet too many of our "new countrymen" 
seem to insist on bringing one into our living room. They might get their way. Perhaps, in reaction 
to the pressures from Muslims, native Scandinavians will "rediscover their inner barbarian" and 
history will go full circle: from tribalism to cappuccino and back again. Who knows, if Arnold 
Schwarzenegger fails to get re-elected as Governor of California he may like to do a sequel to 
"Conan the Barbarian?" He could shoot it in Malmo, Sweden, which is set to become the first major 
Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority. Chances are he'd be surprised at how well he fits in. 

The war against swedes 

Sunday, March 26, 2006 

Last year, I wrote a post about how Swedish society was disintegrating and was in danger of 
collapsing, at least in certain areas and regions. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and 
Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The "Swedish model" would no 
longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but a Eurabian horror story of 
Utopian Multiculturalism, Socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration. Some thought I was 
exaggerating, and that talk of the possibility of a future civil in Sweden was pure paranoia. Was it? 

In a new Sociological survey ( pdf in Swedish , with brief English introduction) entitled "Vi krigar 
mot svenskarna" ("We're waging a war against the Swedes"), young immigrants in the troubled city 
of Malmo have been interviewed about why they are involved in crime. Although it doesn't say so 
here, most of the immigrants in question are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where Swedish 
media actually revealed the truth, newspaper Aftonbladet reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 
of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries. Keep this in mind while 
reading from this newspaper article: 

Immigrants are "waging war" against Swedes through robbery 

The wave of robberies the city of Malmo has witnessed during this past year is part of a 
"war against Swedes." This is the explanation given by young robbers with immigrant 
background on why they are only robbing native Swedes, in interviews with Petra 
Akesson for her thesis in Sociology. "I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm 
and Malmo and wanted to know why they are robbing other youths. It usually doesn't 
involve a lot of money," she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, 
both individually and in groups. 

Almost 90% of all robberies that are reported to the police were committed by gangs, 
not individuals. "When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a 
war against the Swedes." This argument was repeated several times. "Power for me 
means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet." The boys 
explain, laughingly, that "there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you're 
robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you've succeeded, it simply feels 
good." "It's so easy to rob Swedes, so easy." "We rob every single day, as much as we 
want to, whenever we want to." The immigrant youth view Swedes as stupid and 
cowardly: "The Swedes don't do anything, they just give us the stuff. They're so 
wimpy." The young robbers don't plan their crimes: "No, we just see some Swedes that 
look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them." 

Why do they hate Swedes so much? "Well, they hate us," they answer, according to 
Petra Akesson. "When a Swede goes shopping, the lady behind the counter gives him 
the money back into his hand, looks him into the eyes and laughs. When we go 
shopping, she puts the money on the counter and looks another way." Akesson, who is 
adopted from Sri Lanka and thus doesn't look like a native Swede, says it was not 
difficult to get the boys to talk about their crimes. They were rather bragging about who 
had committed the most robberies. Malin Akerstrom, professor in Sociology, can see 
only one solution to the problem: "Jobs for everybody. If this entails a deregulation of 
the labor market to create more jobs, then we should do so." 

It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a 
"war," and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such. This is 
perfectly in line with claims I have made before. The number of rape charges in Sweden has 
quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six 
times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have 
rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. Resident aliens 
from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann 
Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by 
foreign parents. And it's not just Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in 
Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes only as random acts of 
individuals. It resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in 
other infidel countries such as India. European jails are getting filled up with Muslims imprisoned 
for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. You can see 
the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That's because they can't, or don't 
want to, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave: Rape, pillage and 
bomb. If many of the Muslim immigrants see themselves as conquerors involved in a war, it all 
makes perfect sense. 

Malmo, Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority within a decade 
or two, has got nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet the 
number one priority in for the political class in Sweden during this year's national election 
campaign seems to be demonizing neighboring Denmark for "xenophobia" and a "brutal" debate 
about Muslim immigration. During last years Jihad riots in France, Sweden's Social Democratic 
Prime Minister Goran Persson criticised the way the French government handled the unrest in the 
country. "It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach." Persson also rejected the idea of 
more local police as a "first step" in Sweden. "I don't believe that's the way we would choose in 
Sweden. To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line 
we have chosen to follow," he said. Meanwhile, as their authorities have largely abandoned their 
third largest city to creeping anarchy, there is open talk among the native Swedes still remaining in 
Malmo of forming vigilante groups, armed with baseball bats and concern for their children's 
safety. As I've argued in another essay: If Arnold Schwarzenegger fails to get re-elected as 
Governor of California he may like to do a sequel to "Conan the Barbarian." He could shoot it in 
Malmo. He will get the extras for free. 

What happened to the famous Swedish nanny state, you say? Don't Swedes pay the highest tax 
rates in the world? Yes, they do. But tens of billions of kroner, some say several hundred billions, 
are being spent every year on propping up rapidly growing communities of Muslim immigrants. 
Sweden has become the entire world's welfare office, because the political elites have decided that 
massive Muslim immigration is "good for the economy." Pretty soon, Sweden could have an 
"army" of just 5000 men . That's five thousand troops to defend a nation that is geographically more 
than three times the size of England. And it may take up to a year to assemble all of them, provided 
they are not on peacekeeping missions abroad. That Sweden could soon need a little peacekeeping 
at home seems to escape the establishment. In 2006, the celebrated Swedish welfare state has 
become the world's largest pyramid scheme, an Enron with a national flag. 

Although Sweden is an extreme example, similar stories could be told about much of Western 
Europe. As Mark Steyn points out, the Jihad in the streets of France looked like the early skirmishes 
of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and Multicultural 
stupidity. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the 
European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters. At the 
same time, Europeans pay some of the highest tax rates in the world. We should remind our 
authorities that the most important task of the state — some would even claim it should be the only 


task of the state — is to uphold the rule of law in exchange for taxation. Since it is becoming pretty 
obvious that this is no longer the case in Eurabia, we have to question whether these taxes are 
legitimate anymore, or whether they are simply disguised Jizya paid in the form of welfare to 
Muslims and our new Eurocrat aristocracy Although not exactly the Boston Tea Party, perhaps the 
time now has come for a pan-European tax rebellion: We will no longer pay taxes until our 
authorities restore law and order and close the borders for Muslim immigration. 

It's getting urgent. When enough people feel that the system isn't working anymore and that the 
social contract has been breached, the entire fabric of the democratic society could unravel. What 
happens when the welfare state system breaks down, and there is no longer enough money to 
"grease" the increasing tensions between immigrants and native Europeans? And what happens 
when people discover that their own leaders, through the EU networks and the Euro-Arab Dialogue 
described by Bat Ye'or in her book "Eurabia," have been encouraging all these Muslims to settle 
here in the first place? There will be massive unemployment, and tens of millions of people will feel 
angry, scared and humiliated, betrayed by the system, by society and by their own democratic 
leaders. This is a situation in some ways similar to the Great Depression that led to the rise of the 
Nazis in the 1930s. Is this where we're heading once again, with fear, rising Fascism and political 
assassinations? The difference is that the "Jewish threat" in the 1930s was entirely fictional, 
whereas the "Islamic threat" now is very real. However, precisely the trauma caused by the events 
70 years ago is clouding our judgment this time, since any talk at all about the threat posed by 
Muslim immigration or about preserving our own culture is being dismissed as "just like the 
rhetoric used against Jews by the Nazis." Europeans have been taught to be so scared of our own 
shadow that we are incapable of seeing that darkness can come from the outside, too. Maybe 
Europe will burn again, in part as a belated reaction to the horrors of Auschwitz. 

Electing a new people: the leftist - islamic alliance 

May 30, 2006 2:17 PM 

Bertolt Brecht wrote a satirical poem after the 1953 East German risings: 

"The solution 

After the uprising of 17 June 

The Secretary of the Writers' Union 

Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee 

Stating that the People 

Had forfeited the confidence of the government 

And could win it back only 

By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier 

In that case for the government 

To dissolve the people 

And elect another?" 

At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist 
parties in Europe are doing. Perhaps the greatest idea of the Leftist parties after the Cold War 
was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural immigration parties and start importing voters 
from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, 
bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim 
immigrants is taking shape in Europe. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number 
of new clients, I mean voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as 
keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: "I vote 
for the Socialists because they give me more money." The Leftists are, in essence, electing a 
new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda. 

There is, of course, nothing new in buying votes and "clients" by promising them access to 
other people's money. This was the essence of Leftism in the first place. However, although 
this is probably a flaw in the democratic system, democracy has still functioned within the 
borders of stable nation states. This flaw gets a lot more dangerous when combined with 
massive immigration, where certain political parties simply import people from other nations, 
even vocal enemies of their country, to shore up their own short-term support in elections. 
This will in the longer term breed resentment among the native population, who will in this 
way be forced to fund their own colonization. In the context of Europe, Muslim immigration 
could turn democracy into a self-defeating system that will eventually break down because 
native Europeans no longer feel that it serves their interests. 

Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, 
and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional, Judeo-Christian culture of 
Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an evil obstacle blocking 
the road to the Socialist Utopia. Besides, Socialists traditionally place little ideological 
importance on such trivial matters as national borders. I believe Lenin said that borders 
between Soviet Republics were unimportant, as Socialism would transcend all national and 
religious boundaries and render them a thing of the past, anyway. 

Many Marxists still haven't given up that ideal, after a century of failures. Hanne Andersen , a 
Danish Social Democrat, thinks that people from, say, Yemen or Pakistan should have as 
much right to live in Denmark as native Danes: 


"/ have for many years been of the opinion that it is incomprehensible that some people 
(especially from the Danish People's Party) think they have a greater right than other people 
to live in a specific part of the earth. All people, all over the world, who have respect for 
others, their religion, culture, history and values have, as far as I'm concerned, an equal right 
to live wherever they want to. " 

Omer Taspinar describes how " Europe's Muslim Street ," the 15 million or more Muslims of 
the European Union, is becoming a more powerful political force than the fabled Arab street: 
"This political ascendance threatens to exacerbate existing strains within the trans-Atlantic 
relationship. The presence of nearly 10 million Muslims versus only 700,000 Jews in France 
and Germany alone helps explain why continental Europe might look at the Middle East from 
a different angle than does the United States. Indeed, French and German concerns about a 
unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq or Washington's blind support for Israel are at least partly related 
to nervousness about the Muslim street at home." "In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, a 
Muslim swing vote is already having a critical impact." 

Iranian-in-exile Amir Taheri , too, has noticed this "red-black" cooperation. According to him, 
Europe's hard Left "sees Muslims as the new under-class" in the continent: "The European 
Marxist-Islamist coalition does not offer a coherent political platform. Its ideology is built 
around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and 
the hoped-for collapse of the global economic system." 

This cooperation has received support from Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan terrorist 
known as Carlos the Jackal. Carlos has said that Islam is the only force capable of persuading 
large numbers of people to become "volunteers" for suicide attacks against the US. "Only a 
coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US," he said. As Christopher Hitchens put 
it, "once you decide that American-led "globalisation" is the main enemy, then any revolt 
against it is better than none at all. In some way yet to be determined, Al-Qaeda might be able 
to help to stave off global warming." 

Christopher Caldwell , writing about this Islamic-leftist alliance, tells of how the second 
annual European Social Forum in 2003 was held in three Communist-controlled suburbs 
around Paris. "Muslims were hugely overrepresented among the Social Forum's delegates." 
The yearnings of radical Muslims are now at the core of the Social Forum's universe. "They 
have jostled aside the left-wing economics and focus on global markets that once dominated." 
The key sign of this shift was the Forum's anointing of Tariq Ramadan as the event's co-star. 
Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies in Geneva, Switzerland, is the grandson of Hassan al- 
Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and a hero to Muslims in Europe. 

The Muslims are quite happy with this collaboration, at least for now: "We say to anyone who 
hates the Americans and wants to throw the Jews out of Palestine: ahlan wa sahlan 
(welcome)," quipped Abu-Hamza al-Masri, the British Islamist firebrand who is awaiting 
extradition to the US on various criminal charges. "The Prophet teaches that we could ally 
ourselves even with the atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy." 

The American William S. Lind calls this " the Marx-Mohammed Pact :" "What made possible 
the recent bombings in London (July 2005), and the many more that almost assuredly will 
follow in Europe and the United States, is the Marx-Mohammed Pact. Once again, two sworn 
enemies, Marxism - - specifically, the cultural Marxism commonly known as Political 
Correctness - - and Islam, have made a Devil's bargain whereby each assists the other against 
a common enemy, the remnants of the Christian West." "London was only a foretaste of what 
those policies will bring to Europe and America. If we dare rip down the camouflage nets 


cultural Marxism has erected to blind us we see Europe has two real choices: an infinity of 
Londons or second expulsion of the Moors." 

Of course, the same collaboration happened in Iran, where popular "reformers" such as Ali 
Shariati in the years before the 1979 revolution infused Islam with aspects of Western thought 
and made the Marxists believe that they could coexist with Islam. So they cooperated in 
overthrowing the Shah - and then all the godless Socialists were the first ones to hang from 
lamp posts around the country when Khomeini and his Islamic cronies seized power. The 
secular Leftists in Europe know fully well that they do not agree with religious Muslims on 
some issues, but they believe they are the senior partners in the alliance and that they can 
"ride the tiger." That may be true now, but for how long will the situation remain like that? 

In Denmark, writers Helle Merete Brix, Torben Hansen and Lars Hedegaard think the Muslim 
immigration and the clashes we are witnessing now is part of a third Islamic Jihad, a third 
attempt to conquer and subdue the West. The fist one came with the Arabs more than a 
thousand years ago, the second with the Turks in the early modern era. Will three times be the 
charm for the Muslims? Will they succeed this time? 

During the first Jihad, Charles Martel, "The Hammer," brilliant general and founder of the 
Carolingian Empire, the first Western power after the fall of Rome, defeated the Arabs in the 
Battle of Tours (or Poitiers) in 732, thus saving Western civilization, and by extension much 
of the world, from Islam. The Muslims underestimated the strength of the Franks, who they 
considered barbarians, and allowed them to pick both the time and place of the battle. The 
Muslims were also burdened with booty. During the battle, members of the Frankish army 
began freeing prisoners, and fearing loss of their riches, a significant part of the Muslim army 
abandoned the battle to protect their plunder. Although they managed to conquer Spain, 
Muslims thus lost the first shot at subduing the European heartland because they were too 
arrogant and underestimated the strength of their Western opponents, and were too weighed 
down by and concerned with their riches to fight effectively. Is the same thing happening now, 
only in reverse, with the arrogant West underestimating their Muslim opponents until it's too 

During the second Jihad, Jan Sobieski, king of Poland, routed the Ottoman armies that had 
laid siege to Vienna in 1683. Leading a combined force of Polish, Austrian and German 
troops, Sobieski attacked a numerically superior Turkish army until their lines were broken 
and the Turks fled in confusion. This was the last time Muslims came close to threatening the 
West in traditional warfare. They now prefer demographic warfare through migration, 
combined with terrorism. 

The third Jihad started with the oil embargo, the influx of Saudi petrodollars and the 
beginnings of Eurabia and Muslim immigration to the West in the 1960s and early 70s. 
During the third Jihad, Leftists all over Europe seem to be opening the gates of Europe from 
within. "You want to conquer Europe? That's ok. Just vote for us and help us get rid of 
capitalism and eradicate the Christian heritage of Europe, and we'll let you in. In the 
meantime, you can enjoy some welfare goodies, and we will ban opposition to this 
undertaking as racism and hate speech." 

The basic trends are remarkably similar throughout Western Europe. I will start with 
describing the situation in the Scandinavian countries, as I'm Norwegian myself and thus have 
the most detailed knowledge of this region. 


You know you have entered a strange, Eurabian world when leading politicians from Norway, 
a country straddling the Arctic Circle and with no colonial history, begin their election 
campaigns in the Pakistani countryside . Before Norway's national elections in 2005, the 
leader of the Socialist Left party, Kristin Halvorsen, praised all the "blood, sweat and tears 
Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country." While the deputy leader of the 
Socialist Left party has stated that he wants to abolish private property, its leader Kristin 
Halvorsen is in 2006 Norway's Minister of Finance. 83 percent of Muslims in Norway voted 
for Leftist parties in 2005. The Labor Party got a majority of these votes, whereas the 
Socialist Left Party got 30, 5 %, more than three times the percentage it got among the general 
populace. Psephologist Anders Todal Jenssen pointed out that parties such as the Socialist Left 
party had the most liberal immigration policies, and that this probably contributed to this tilt 
towards Leftist parties among immigrants. Likewise, the Labor Party is seen as the primary 
guarantor of the generous welfare state. The Leftist parties won a very slim majority (in fact, a 
minority of the votes) in parliament in 2005, and formed a coalition government that has been 
notoriously anti-Israeli and critical of the USA, as well as appeasing towards Palestinian 
Hamas terrorists. 

Before Norway's Constitution Day, May 17th, in 2006, the Multicultural lobby in the country 
wanted to celebrate the day by singing the Norwegian national anthem - in Urdu. The idea 
was that an Urdu version of the anthem would allow many immigrants from Pakistan, for 
example, to more easily express their love for Norway. The title of Norway's national anthem 
is "Ja vi elsker," which in English translates to "Yes we love (this country)." It may sound 
ridiculous to sing Urdu in Norway, but the capital city of Oslo in particular has a significant 
and fast-growing Pakistani community. In fact, it is expected that native Norwegians will be a 
minority in their own capital city within a generation. American writer Bruce Bawer, who 
lives in Norway, has pointed out in his book While Europe Slept : How Radical Islam is 
Destroying the West from Within, that there are now more direct flights from Norway to 
Pakistan than from Norway to the USA. 

Samira Munir, Norwegian politician of Pakistani origins, received many death threats against 
herself and her family because of her work as a champion of the rights of Muslim immigrant 
women. She was found dead under strange circumstances in November 2005 at Kolbotn 
station, one of the suburban lines outside Oslo. Earlier in 2005, Munir had claimed that there 
was widespread cooperation between the Socialist parties and Muslim communities during 
that year's elections in Norway. "The heads of families and the mosques would decide how 
entire groups of immigrants would vote. They made deals such as "How much money will we 
get if we get our people to vote for you?", and the deals were always made with the Socialist 
parties" said Munir. It should be noted that her own, Conservative party was not innocent of 
this, either. Akhtar Chaudhry , politician for the Socialist Left party, stated that Norway with 
its welfare state was pretty close to the Muslim idea of Paradise, and that the welfare state was 
similar to Islamic concepts of social justice. Of course, he failed to mention that according to 
"Islamic justice," non-Muslims should pay Muslims tribute as a sign of submission, and that 
undoubtedly many Muslim immigrants view the infidel welfare state in this way. He also 
failed to explain why Muslims cannot create such a "paradise" in their own countries, or 
whether the Scandinavian "Paradise" can survive a massive influx of Muslim immigrants. 

In Denmark in 2005, less than five percent of immigrant voters supported the centre -right 
government, which had taken some steps in recent years to limit Muslim immigration. The 
country's Leftist parties had the near unanimous support of Denmark's immigrants. According 
to the Copenhagen Post , "over 95 percent of non-ethnic Danes with the right to vote say they 
support left-leaning opposition parties." The most popular party with immigrants was the 
Social Democrats. The second largest party in parliament drew the support of 47.6 percent of 


immigrants. Second most popular was the Social Liberal Party, polling at 21.4 percent. This 
trend has not gone unnoticed by those wanting to limit Muslim immigration, such as the 
Danish People's Party and its leader Pia Kjsersgaard : "Let's be honest. The Radicals are not 
just cafe latte-sipping people from the creative class. To a large degree, it is also largely 
composed of immigrants, and one could fear the result of the upcoming local elections in 
large cities, where there are large concentrations of immigrants that the Social Liberals pander 
to,' Kjaersgaard said. In the Scandinavian and Nordic countries, non-citizen immigrants gain 
voter rights in local (but not national) elections after living in the country for three years. 

A vitriolic row erupted into the heart of Denmark's general election campaign early in 2005 
when Islamic leaders urged the country's Muslims to vote against the ruling centre-right 
coalition. Kasem Said Ahmad, a prominent Muslim community spokesman, said he "advised 
all Muslims to oppose the government." Mr Ahmad organized a gathering of imams in an 
anti-government message during that week's Friday prayers. Danish Prime Minister Fogh 
Rasmussen, who was eventually re-elected, responded angrily and immediately to the 
proposed intervention of Denmark's imams: "They should keep their fingers out of politics," 
Mr Fogh Rasmussen said. "In Denmark we keep politics and religion separate. Imagine if 
Danish priests were to use church pulpits to urge people to vote for particular parties," he said. 
Morten Messerschmidt , a member of Denmark's Parliament for the Danish People's Party, 
says that "everybody should have expected that the leftwing would be the first to cry out 
against the Muslim intolerance. But for some reason only a few have done so. It has to do 
with a screwed up idea of cultural relativism." "Secondly I believe it has to do with power - it 
is well known that the Muslim minorities in Denmark are voting for leftwing parties. And 
some politicians - in Denmark as well as in many other European countries - are deliberately 
campaigning for these votes. Of course you wouldn't like to disturb the people handing you 
your paycheque." 

In the spring of 2006, Sweden's largest Muslim organisation demanded in a letter, signed by 
its leader Mahmoud Aldebe, that Sweden should introduce separate laws for Muslims . The 
letter was a list running over several pages with aggressive demands for just about everything; 
separate family laws for Muslims, regulating marriage and divorce, that public schools should 
employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in their religion and the 
language of their original homeland. Sweden's Equality Minister Jens Orback called the 
proposals "completely unacceptable." 

However, it looks increasingly as if the election in September will be a very close race, and 
the Leftist parties will be dependent upon the support of immigrants to remain in power. As 
Nima Sanandaji points out in FrontPage Magazine , "Swedish public television exposed that 
the leading Social Democratic party had started fishing for votes with the help of radical 
Muslim clergies." For several years the Christian wing of the Social Democratic party, called 
The Brotherhood, has been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud Aldebe, 
president of Sweden's Muslim Association. Already in 1999, Aldebe proposed that sharia, 
Islamic law, should be introduced in Sweden. After the last election in 2002, Sweden's 
Muslim Association sent a congratulation letter to the re-elected Social Democratic Prime 
minister Goran Persson, congratulating him on his victory and hoping that Persson would 
work for implementing some of the demands of the Association in the future. The Muslim 
Brotherhood has earlier stated that for them, "Sweden is in many ways an ideal country, [and 
it] shares the ideals of the [Swedish] Social Democrats in their view of the welfare society. 
Leading figures in Muslim congregations are also active within the Social Democratic [Party], 
and have very good relations with Sweden's Christian Social Democrats. "The Social 
Democrats have, in turn, and perhaps as thanks for the support they receive from the mosque 
leadership, shown a tendency to shy away from the fact that there is extremism in some of our 


mosques. This has given the Muslim Brotherhood the freedom to force its ideology upon [the 
mosque's worshippers]." Israeli authorities in 2006 called Sweden "the most anti-Israeli 
country in Europe." The number of rape charges in the country has quadrupled parallel with 
Muslim immigration in recent years. 

During the elections in the United Kingdom in 2005, the Labour Party tried hard to win back 
the traditional support from Muslims in Britain, many of whom threatened to leave the party 
in favor of anti-war Respect Party candidate George Galloway or even the Liberal Democrats 
because of Tony Blair's support for the war in Iraq. The most visible result of this was the 
attempts to pass a law banning incitement to "religious hatred." Prominent Muslims have 
stated their hope that according to this new law, it would be a crime to use terms such as 
"Islamic terrorism." The bill has been proposed in the British Parliament several times, but 
stranded on opposition from the House of Lords. As newspaper the Daily Telegraph stated, "it 
is a bone tossed to those who claim to speak on behalf of a Muslim community that 
overwhelmingly resides in Labour inner city heartlands." "If such a law had existed in the 
1980s, Salman Rushdie might have been prosecuted for writing Satanic Verses rather than 
being protected by the British state." A local Labour candidate in London, Oona King, who 
eventually lost her election to Galloway, was accused of double standards after dropping 
references to Muslims in leaflets for predominantly white areas. One of the leaflets stated: 
"Oona voted to protect Muslims from hate crimes." But in the other leaflet it said: "Oona 
voted to make incitement to religious hatred a crime." One of her colleagues tried to lure 
British Muslims back into the fold with the following arguments: " Labour and British 
Muslims : Can we dream the same dream?" "Are you still unconvinced that the Muslims need 
or should want a Labour Prime Minister in Downing Street? Tony Blair is the first Prime 
Minister to have ever read the Qur'an, to quote from it and to talk about it." "The Muslim 
Council of Britain has been at the forefront of lobbying the Government on issues to help 
Muslims. Recently Iqbal Sacranie, the General Secretary of the Council, asked Tony Blair to 
declare that the Government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. 
Two weeks later, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour Government would ban religious 
discrimination. It was a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain." 

Gordon Brown , Blair's PM-successor-in-waiting, paid tribute to British Muslims as "modern 
heroes" who brought hope and idealism to the country. He said they had "contributed to 
Britain spiritually and economically because Islam was a religion that encouraged fair play, 
social justice and equality." Labour PM Tony Blair himself called Islam "progressive" and 
praised the Koran for being "practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, 
women and governance." This was after the Jihadist terror bombings in London in July 2005, 
and while several Muslim clerics in the UK were openly calling for overthrowing the West 
and British democracy. Maybe Blair, Brown and their ilk didn't read writer Spengler of the 
Asia Times Online , who, while reviewing Melanie Phillips' book "Londonistan," noted that 
"revulsion and contempt color Muslim attitudes toward the British leftists who most desire to 
appease them." In all fairness, it should be mentioned that even Conservative Party leader 
Michael Howard in 2005 spoke of the "immense" contribution Muslims have made to British 
life. Mr Howard said the "economically vibrant, culturally creative, socially aware" British 
Muslim community enriched modern Britain." This attempt of flirting with Muslims voters 
met with little success, however. The Tories complained in 2005 that it was difficult for them 
"to win the cities." As elsewhere in Europe, Muslim immigrants in Britain tend to be 
concentrated in major cities, thus consolidating the grip Leftist parties had on these areas. In 
the Netherlands, the municipal elections in March 2006 were won by the Labour Party, the 
Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA). The balance was tipped by the Muslim vote . Eighty percent of 
the growing immigrant electorate voted for the PvdA, while the remaining Muslims voted for 
smaller parties of the extreme left. This phenomenon prompted De Telegraaf, the largest paper 


in the country, to write that the immigrants have become a "power block." A case in point was 
the Amsterdam borough of Geuzenveld-Slotermeer. Here the PvdA won 54% of the votes. Of 
their 13 seats, however, 5 were won by Turkish and 2 by Moroccan candidates. This means 
that more than half the seats of the largest party were won by Muslims. The situation 
resembled that in the regional parliament of Brussels, Belgium, the so-called "capital of 
Europe," where the Parti Socialiste was the largest party. Over half its 26 seats were held by 
Muslim immigrants. As the online Brussels Journal noted, "the electoral strength of the Left in 
Western Europe is increasingly based on the immigrant vote, as the Left caters for voters who 
favour extensive redistribution of taxpayers' money to so-called "underprivileged" groups 
such as immigrants." "In many West European countries the parties of the Left are actively 
catering for the growing Muslim vote. The Left realizes that the Third World immigrants 
guarantee its power base because these immigrants moved to Western Europe attracted by the 
generous welfare benefits that the parties of the Left promote." 

The PvdA leader Bos was worried about the poor competence of many of these newly elected 
immigrants. He said that "our new immigrant councillors" are bound to cause trouble because 
their "political culture" is often incompatible with Dutch politics: "They conduct politics 
according to the culture of their home countries, where clientelism is the norm." Bos's words 
were widely reported by the Dutch media and caused anger among the newly elected PvdA 
councillors, some of whom hinted that Bos had made a racist remark. According to the 
Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies of the University of Amsterdam 80% of the non- 
indigenous electorate voted for Labour. This explains why cities such as Amsterdam, 
Rotterdam, Breda and Arnhem succumbed to the Left. 

In Germany in the general election in 2002, numbers have indicated that about up to 90 
percent of the Muslim voters backed Schroder's left-wing coalition. "Some 200,000 German 
Muslims voted for Schroeder in the elections which he won by only 9,000." Poll data from 
2005, when the Social Democratic SPD narrowly lost the election to the conservatives and 
joined in a coalition with Angela Merkel as Chancellor, indicate that 77 percent of Turkish 
voters planned to vote for the Social Democrats, followed by 9.2 percent for the Greens and 
7.8 percent for the Left Alliance. Pundits said that the Muslim vote was likely to reward 
Schroder's Social Democrats (SPD) for its anti-Iraq war position and pro-Muslim policies . A 
meager 4.8 percent said they would cast votes for the conservative CDU. Cem Ozedmir , a 
member of the European Parliament for Germany's Green Party, said the Christian Democrats 
had made a strategic decision in not trying to attract Turkish voters. "It is too high a cost," he 
explained. "For every Turkish voter the party might win, it would lose two or three German 
voters because of the party's conservative attitudes toward immigration and its social base." 
Guelay Yasin, manager of the Turkish-German Chamber of Commerce, made it clear for 
which party most of her members would vote. "We will vote for the party which supports 
Turkey's membership to the EU," Yasin said. The Social Democrats would profit from this 
since Schroder had personally supported Turkey's becoming a member of the EU. 

In fact, the major challenge to the Social Democrats in vying for the Muslim vote in Germany, 
especially the country's 2.6 million Turks, 840,000 of them with German passports, comes 
from other Leftist parties. Some warned that the SPD could lose a number of Turkish voters to 
the newly formed and immigrant-friendly Left Party, a group born out of the marriage of 
former East German communists and Oskar Lafontaine, the ex-chief of the Social Democrats. 
Hans-Christian Strobele , a member of parliament for the Green Party, in 2006 triggered a 
debate by calling for an official Turkish translation of the German national anthem. 
Conservatives worried it would send the wrong signal about integration. A Turkish version, 
Strobele said, could demonstrate how multicultural German society has become. "I would see 
it as a sign of integration if citizens of Turkish descent could sing the third verse in Turkish." 


Early in 2006, the secretary general of Italy's largest Muslim organisation, the Union of 
Islamic communities in Italy, called on Italian Muslims to vote for the Party of Italian 
Communists at the general election. The leader of UCOII said that their party's willingness to 
accommodate the needs of the Muslim community was a good reason to vote for them - even 
placing at the end of his email the logos of the Party of Italian Communists and its allies at the 
Senate, the Greens, both members of the center-left coalition. Just weeks after Italian Muslims 
recommended voting for the Communist Party, a Communist minister in the newly elected 
Leftist coalition of Romano Prodi, super-Eurocrat and former President of the European 
Commission, which won a very slim majority and ousted right-winger Berlusconi, decided to 
make it easier for immigrants from North Africa to enter the country. Italy's new Social 
Solidarity Minister, Paolo Ferrero, touched off an immigration controversy by announcing 
that under Prodi's new center-left government, "any foreigner with a job should be allowed to 
stay in the country." "The declarations of Minister for Social Solidarity Paolo Ferrero on the 
delicate issue of immigration were met enthusiastically by the people who are waiting to set 
sail from other shores of the Mediterranean" said deputy Senate speaker Roberto Calderoli, 
who belonged to Italy's anti-immigrant Northern League. "Announcing the closure of 
temporary shelter camps and the abolition of the Bossi-Fini law will unleash an invasion." 
Italy is facing a growing number of illegal workers from North Africa . There has been an 
increase in arrivals to Italy by sea, as "Moroccans who used to cross into Spain to get into the 
rest of Europe are changing tactics and now going by boat from Libya to Italy." Libya has 
become the bottleneck of much of the immigration from Africa and of a large part of the 
Middle East. 

Leading Sunni Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi and others have hailed the coming Islamic 
conquest of Rome , just like Constantinople was conquered in 1453. "Islam will return to 
Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice. Islam entered Europe 
twice and left it... Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies." The Saudi Sheikh 
Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense 
Academy, concurred: "We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and 
introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians (...) will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non- 
Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam. . ." 

Given the actions of European Leftists, Qaradhawi could end up being right in his predictions. 


People worry about islam, its leaders about islamophobia 

Wed, 2006-04-26 23:02 

Thorbjorn Jagland is a former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of Norway from the Labor 
Party. He is now President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, and thus technically speaking 
the highest ranking person in the country, next to the King. He recently wrote an essay in 
Aftenposten newspaper entitled Islamofobi vart nye spokelse? (Islamophobia our new specter?) 
where he warned against the dangers of Islamophobia. According to Jagland, seemingly 
paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto, a specter is haunting Europe - the specter of Islamophobia. 
Between the lines, Jagland seems to hint that the situation in Europe is now similar to that of the 
1930s: We are very close to a new world war and the downfall of European democracy, a_ 
conclusion I wholeheartedly support . This is also where our agreement ends. According to Mr. 
Jagland, "far too few people during the interwar period understood what a fateful time they were 
living in. While those who wanted peace were arguing, Fascism grew stronger. In the point of 
intersection between the Islamists and Islamophobia, a new type of Fascism could emerge." 

Jagland praises the way the Labor-led Norwegian government handled the crisis after a tiny 
Christian newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the now famous twelve cartoons of Muhammad from 
Jyllands-Posten in Denmark. According to Bruce Bawer, "Velbjorn Selbekk, the editor of 
Magazinet, had firmly resisted pressure by Muslim extremists (who made death threats) and by the 
Norwegian establishment. But then Norway's Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion hastily called 
a press conference at a major government office building in Oslo. There Selbekk issued an abject 
apology for reprinting the cartoons. At his side, accepting his act of contrition on behalf of 46 
Muslim organizations and asking that all threats now be withdrawn, was Mohammed Hamdan, head 
of Norway's Islamic Council. In attendance were members of the Norwegian cabinet and the largest 
assemblage of imams in Norway's history." Although Jagland thinks we ended the cartoon 
controversy in a good way, he fears that there is still a lot of quiet Islamophobia in the general 
public because of "the perverted version of Islam promoted by the extremists." The right-wing 
Progress Party, already the second largest in Norway, has been growing in the wake of the cartoon 
affair, and now seems to be in the process of replacing Jagland's Labor Party as the largest party in 
the country, for the first time in 80 years. 

Thorbjorn Jagland recommends time-tested Eurabian methods to combat "the rising racism." He 
earlier lauded the EU's decision to begin negotiations with Turkey as "just as important to Europe 
as the fall of the Berlin Wall," of course without saying a word about the fact that this was strongly 
against the wishes of a majority of the people in nearly all EU countries. In particular, Jagland 
wants Norwegians to learn from the example of our neighbors in Sweden, which is not as 
"xenophobic" as our other Scandinavian neighbor, Denmark. Is Jagland being serious? Sweden is 
probably the worst country in the Western world in dealing with these issues. 

Sweden has a 25% real unemployment rate . What happens if or when the Swedish welfare state 
collapses? Isn't it likely that this will trigger a flood of "welfare tourists" to neighboring countries 
such as Norway? This question hasn't even been asked, much less debated, by a single political 
leader in this country. The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in a generation, 
parallel with Muslim immigration. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia 
dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the 
convicted rapists in one court were born on foreign soil or of foreign parents. In a new Sociological 
survey, the wave of robberies the city of Malmo has witnessed during this past year is part of a " war 
against Swedes ." This is the explanation given by young robbers with immigrant background. 
"When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes." 
This argument was repeated several times. "Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie 
down on the ground and kiss my feet." The boys explain, laughingly, that "there is a thrilling 


sensation in your body when you're robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you've 
succeeded, it simply feels good." "It's so easy to rob Swedes, so easy" "We rob every single day, as 
much as we want to, whenever we want to." 

A high school teacher in Malmo discovered that about a dozen Arab students were laughing and 
shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while watching a DVD of infidel hostages being beheaded in Iraq. The 
headmaster didn't think the incident was such a big deal. At least 139 schools in Sweden suffered 
arson attacks during 2002 alone. Bjorn Vinberg from the fire department in Kroksback in the 
Malmo area says it's humiliating and degrading to put out fires again and again in the same 
immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one straightaway. His 
colleagues have been to the same place no less than twenty times, all totally unnecessarily. One of 
the schools in Malmo recently closed down an entire section because of rampant violence, 
something unheard of in Sweden only a generation ago. 

Sweden is a semi-totalitarian country. It's all about facade. On the surface, Sweden is a tolerant 
nation and peaceful democracy. In reality, there is massive media censorship by a closed elite that is 
scared of having a debate about immigration. There are even physical attacks on critics of 
immigration by Leftist extremists, something which has been largely ignored and thus quietly 
approved by the establishment, until it now even targets parties in Parliament . No dissent is 
tolerated. Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be 
combined with Swedish society, and a very significant proportion of the population have for years 
wanted more limitations on immigration. Yet not one party represented in the Swedish Parliament is 
genuinely critical of the Multicultural society or the current immigration policies. The Swedish elite 
congratulate themselves that they have managed to keep "xenophobic" parties from gaining a 
foothold while the country is sinking underneath their feet. No, Mr. Jagland, we have nothing to 
learn from Sweden except hypocrisy to perfection. We should study them only to avoid letting them 
drag us down with them when they fall, which they will. 

Curiously, at almost the same time as Mr. Jagland warned against rising "Islamophobia," an article 
in newspaper Aftenposten warned that "youths" are in the process of destroying Norway's capital 
city, Oslo. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that these "youths" bear a striking resemblance to the 
same "youths" with Muslim immigrant background that are destroying so many cities across 
Western Europe: 

Youths Destroying Oslo 

Criminal youths are in the process of destroying the social environment in Oslo, 
concludes the Oslo City Court. Young girls are raped and robbed. Schoolchildren are 
threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The Stovner-police is now uncovering 
another violent gang in the Grorudvalley on the outskirts of Oslo. Four boys were 
robbed Sunday night, February 5. Eight youths, ranging from 15 to 18 years old, were 
arrested, and are now charged with the robberies. All suspects are of foreign origin. 
One of the suspects, a Somalian who turned 1 7 last week, appeared in court and was 
sent to jail in order to protect society. Only four days after being apprehended he was 
due to stand trial in another robbery case. To avoid letting the youth loose among his 
peers, he was sent directly to a jail in Oslo to serve time for several robberies, a rape, 
and assisting another rape. 

The 17 year old Somalian has several serious crimes on his conscience, but the worst is 
probably the rape of a young girl at Hoybraaten (Oslo suburb) one year ago. Oslo 
Court states that the rape was unusually brutal, and lasted for several hours. The young 
girl was threatened with a knife and beaten. The Somalian choked the girl so brutally 
and for so long, that the medical doctor who afterwards treated the girl, said that she 
could have died. Her voice has changed. The girl is now suffering from severe 
psychological problems in the aftermath of the attack. The Youth was sentenced to four 


and a half years in prison, with three years made conditional, which means he will 
serve only one and a half years. The sentence also included another rape, where his 
Norwegian-Moroccan friend raped a 13 year old girl, whilst the Somalian helped to 
threaten her and keep guard. She was also brutally treated, and is experiencing serious 
problems after the experience. The Court states that the girl was harassed by the family 
of the Norwegian-Moroccan and his friends. It went so far that the girl was angry at her 
own mother for giving the name of the rapists to the police. The girl wanted to pay the 
offenders to make them leave her alone. Her psychological condition became so bad 
she had to be forcibly sent to a psychological institution. Her schooling is destroyed. 

Aftenposten should be commended for even printing this politically incorrect article, which is 
unfortunately rare in Norwegian media. The original article in Norwegian quickly got more than 
one hundred comments by readers. There were so many furious comments that the newspaper 
suddenly decided to remove them. In general, my impression is that a rapidly increasing part of the 
population distrusts Muslims. Only massive media censorship conceals this fact, and I suspect the 
same goes for much of Europe. However, Aftenposten seem to have forgotten an article they printed 
five years ago . In 2001, two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital were immigrants 
with a non-western background according to a police study. Norwegian women were the victims in 
80 per cent of the cases. A leading member of the Liberal Party (Venstre), Odd Einar Dorum, 
demanded all the numbers be put on the table : "A scumbag is a scumbag, regardless of skin color". 
From 2001 to 2005, Dorum was Norway's Minister of Justice, and nobody has seen these statistics 
since 2001. The number of rape charges in Oslo have continued to rise. There is ample evidence of 
brutal gang rapes, something that used to be rare in Scandinavia, being committed by immigrants 
against native girls. 

Not only have the authorities done nothing to stop this trend of racist attacks against native 
Norwegians, they have taken steps to increase crackdowns on "racism" by the natives. In 2005 
Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, passed a new Discrimination Act , prepared by the then 
Minister of Integration, Erna Solberg, who earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in 
Norway. The act says in pretty clear words that in cases of suspected direct or indirect 
discrimination based on religion or ethnicity, native Norwegians are guilty until proven otherwise. 
The immigration spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law 
would jeopardize the rights of ordinary, law-abiding Norwegian citizens. Reverse burden of proof is 
combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay 
huge sums for things they did not do. FOMI, a Norwegian anti-Islamic website, was recently 
charged with "racism and spreading Islamophobia" for translating one of several articles by 
Frontpage Magazine, with comments, about a Muslim rape wave in the West. 

Bruce Bawer , author of the recently published book " While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is 
Destroying the West from Within ," devotes a good deal of space to European media in his writings, 
which is appropriate. The Norwegian Prime Minister and leader of the Labor Party, Jens 
Stoltenberg, has stated that "journalistic diversity is too important to be left up to the marketplace." 
The government is still running two out of Norway's four national TV channels, and three of its 
national radio channels. NRK, the Norwegian equivalent of the BBC in the UK, complete with the 
same anti-American, anti-Israeli and pro-Islamic bias, was the only national TV channel in Norway 
until 1992, three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leader of the right-wing Progress Party, 
Mr. Carl I. Hagen, has labelled NRK "ARK," or "Labor Party's Broadcasting Company," since until 
the 90s most of its leaders were former leading members of the Labor Party. In addition to this, 
something that would be unthinkable in the USA, Norwegian taxpayers actually subsidize 
commercial Norwegian newspapers. This is supposedly to ensure diversity of opinions. This system 
means that Norwegian taxpayers, whether they want to or not, subsidize the existence of the 
Norwegian Communist newspaper Klassekampen (The Class Struggle), whose members in the 
1970s strenuously denied any mass-murders done by Pol Pot and his comrades in Cambodia, 


denouncing the accusations as "capitalist lies" to slime a successful, Socialist nation. Norway's only 
professor of journalism at university level, Sigurd Allern, is a former leader of the Communist 
Party He is today teaching critical thinking to aspiring journalists at the University of Oslo. 

At the same time, Norway can hardly come up with a single decent conservative newspaper, the 
closest being the business daily Dagens Nseringsliv. The most rightist newspapers, such as 
Aftenposten or VG, could at best be described as centrist or even soft-leftist, with a few individual 
journalists centre-right. Diversity of media in Norway thus means the whole range from hard-leftist 
to soft-leftist, with the Norwegian equivalent of the New York Times being as far right as you can 
get. As Bawer notes, when he first came to Norway, he was impressed by the number of newspapers 
the average citizen reads on a daily basis. Only later did he start to question what information they 
were actually presented in these newspapers. 

Norwegians pride themselves on their sophisticated and informed view of the world, viewing 
Americans as somewhat simplistic and brainwashed by FOX News propaganda. The very word or 
concept of " Eurabia " has hardly been mentioned at all in Norwegian media. One prominent 
journalist, not a Leftist by Norwegian standards, told me that Eurabia is just another conspiracy 
theory , on a par with The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Kari Vogt , a historian of religion 
at the University of Oslo and widely considered and quoted as the leading expert on Islam in the 
country, has stated that Ibn Warraq's book " Why I am Not a Muslim " is just as irrelevant to the 
study of Islam as The Protocols are to the study of Judaism. A Norwegian NGO called the Freedom 
of Expression Fund supports the translation and publication of bin Laden's speeches. They also 
awarded the editor of the Communist newspaper Klassekampen with the Freedom of Speech award 
for his bravery in defence of free speech. He has shown sympathies for Islamic terrorists in his 

For some strange reason, Bruce Bawer 's book has so far been widely ignored by the Norwegian 
media, despite the fact that Bawer lives in Norway and that his work is being read with interests by 
experts and laymen on both sides of the Atlantic. Could it be that Mr. Bawer has touched upon some 
sensitive issues that the sophisticated Norwegian press don't want to talk about? Michael Moore's 
books criticizing the USA were translated into Norwegian and sold very well. Any chance this will 
happen to Bawer 's book, criticizing Europe? 

Mr. Jagland worries about the possibilities of a new kind of powerful Fascist movement in Europe, 
and quite frankly, so do I. But there is no need for this to happen if people feel that their elected 
leaders uphold their interests the way they are supposed to do. However, when a government can no 
longer guarantee, within reason, the safety of its citizens, that government's days are numbered and 
that system of government's days may also be numbered. It took centuries of hard and ingenuous 
work to build our civilized Western society, yet judging from current events, it may take just a few 
short decades for this civilization to commit collective suicide. It is amazing to see such a rapid 
dissolution of centuries old European countries due to immigration without assimilation. I have read 
Norwegian historians and "experts" who claim that there is nothing to worry about over this 
massive immigration, since there has always been immigration and this situation is not new. 

This is a clever form of lie. At the beginning of the 21st century the total number of people on this 
planet is vastly larger than ever before in the history of the human race. Combined with modern 
means of communication, we get the largest and fastest population transfers ever recorded, large 
enough to destroy nations or, in the case of Europe, perhaps even entire continents. This is "the 
great extinction of peoples" and small Scandinavian nations with a few million inhabitants, a drop 
in the sea of humanity, will be completely crushed by these processes unless they take strong steps 
to limit immigration. That's the simple truth. Yet all our so-called leaders can do is warn against 
"xenophobia." Dr. Ole Jorgen Anfindsen, editor of , believes that Norwegian 
authorities have cheated with prognoses for the number of immigrants. According to his numbers, 
ethnic Norwegians will become a minority in their own country before 2050 if the current trends 
continue, in Oslo long before this. The number of Muslims in Norway over 15 years has 


quadrupled, meaning an annual growth of more than 9%. 

With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own capital 
city within a couple of decades, a situation that has never happened since the foundation of Oslo a 
thousand years ago. Newcomers move into an area and brutalize the natives who have become too 
soft to uphold themselves. There is nothing new about this scenario; it has been going on for 
thousands of years, for as long as mankind has existed. It is the harsh law of nature. What is unique 
in this case is that the original inhabitants of this country are forced to fund their own colonization 
and eventual extinction by their own leaders, who portray this as an act of "tolerance." 


Is the nation state obsolete? 

Mon, 2006-06-05 22:29 

Martin van Creveld is an Israeli military historian and theorist, born in the Netherlands but living in 
Israel. He is the author of many books on military history and strategy, and has lectured at many 
strategic institutes around the Western world. I do not always agree with Mr. van Creveld politically. 
From an Internet search, I noted this quote by him in particular: "Given the balance of forces, it 
cannot be argued that a nuclear Iran will threaten the United States. Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad's fulminations to the contrary, the Islamic Republic will not even be a threat to 
Israel.'''' I strongly disagree. However, van Creveld is an historian by profession and of some repute, 
and his writings are articulate and to the point. I will use him to highlight some of the criticism 
made against the nation state today. The following quotes by him are taken from the essays or 
booklets The State: Its Rise and Decline and The Fate of the State , both of which are available 
online. To counter some of his arguments, I will use Roger Scruton, the eminent British philosopher 
and thinker who I personally hold I very high regard. Most of the quotes by Scruton will be from 
his excellent little book The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat , some of 
which is also available online . Basically, anything written by Roger Scruton is recommended 

Van Creveld starts his tale of the modern state, as do many others, with the Peace of Westphalia that 
ended the Thirty Years' War in 1648. The Thirty Years' War, a series of wars beginning in 1618 
because of conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and political struggles involving the Holy 
Roman Empire, was fought mainly in the region we now call Germany. The impact of the wars in 
central Europe was devastating. In Germany, the mortality rate was perhaps 20 percent or more. The 
Thirty Years' War became the last major religious war in Europe. The edicts agreed upon during the 
Peace of Westphalia helped lay the foundations for what was to become modern nation states, 
stipulating that the citizens of the respective nations should be subjected primarily to the laws and 
of their own governments, and in many ways initiated modern diplomacy in the West. According to 
van Creveld, "what made the system of government that emerged in Europe after the end of the 
Thirty Years War different was the fact that it was a corporation. Previously, kings and emperors 
had been the same as the organizations they headed^ 

"In my view, the fact that the state, unlike all previous political constructs, was able to 
separate the ruler from the organization was the secret behind its outstanding success. 
What made the state unique was that it replaced the ruler with an abstract, anonymous, 
mechanism made up of laws, rules, and regulations.'" 

Van Creveld stresses the role played by technology in the birth of the modern nation state: 

"The role played by print in the establishment of the state cannot be overestimated. 
Next, the telegraph and the railways enabled states to bring their populations under 
control and to cast their networks over entire countries, even continents. The role of 
technologies such as telephones, teleprinters, computers (first put to use in calculating 
the results of the US census), highways, and other systems of transportation and 
communication was even greater than that of their predecessors. Without them it would 
have been impossible for the state to contemplate the task that it had undertaken since 
the beginning of the 19th century: to impose its control over every part of society from 
the highest to the lowest and almost regardless of distance and geographical location.''' 

The number of ministries, for instance, which during the 17th and 18th centuries had usually been 
only a handful such as the minister of justice, the minister of foreign affairs, the minister of war, and 
the minister of the treasury, has now risen to several dozens in many countries. 


Martin van Creveld notes, however, that technology bears a Janus face. It gives governments the 
tools with which to dominate their countries, but it also transcends national borders, obstructing 
attempts to domination and thus making possible "entirely unprecedented'' gains in terms of both 
freedom and prosperity. And yet, just as modern technology helped facilitate the rise of nation 
states, it is now, ironically, breaking them down again: 

"The third factor working against the state is the process known, in short, as 
globalization. Essentially globalization is the product of technological change; a 
convergence of new means of transportation and communication that have made the 
world much smaller and more interdependent. Some of these technologies, such as 
radio, television, satellite television, videos, telephones, fax machines, and the internet 
easily penetrate state-borders. Others, such as the jumbo jets which carry half a million 
people across the Atlantic each week, can only be used with the greatest efficiency if 
they are not limited to the borders of any single state. These technologies in turn have 
made it possible not just for information but for money and people to flow across state- 
borders to an extent, and at a rate, that defies any attempt to control it; perhaps the 
factors that did most to bring down the old so-called German Democratic Republic 
were people s desire for the D Mark on the one hand and West German Television on 
the other. They have also made it possible for private corporations that are not states to 
coordinate and merge on a global scale.'" 

Some of these changes are definitely real, not hype. I am taking part in technological globalization 
myself. While Fjordman lives in Europe, my posts and essays are published on websites based in 
North America, such as Jihad Watch , and the Gates of Vienna blog , and they have 
readers from India to Australia. The vast majority of those reading my writings live outside my own 
nation state, and they can also respond to what they read and communicate with the author. This 
global conversation between ordinary citizens would indeed have been impossible a generation ago. 

Van Creveld says: 

"Finally, the unprecedented development of electronic information services seems to 
mark another step toward the coming collapse of the state. Traditionally no state has 
ever been able to completely control the thoughts of all its citizens; With the advent of 
computer networks and the consequent democratization of access to information, the 
battle between freedom and control was irretrievably lost by the latter, much to the 
regret of numerous governments." "Contrary to the fears of George Orwell in 1984, 
modern technology, in the form of nuclear weapons on the one hand and unprecedented 
means for communication and transportation on the other, has not resulted in the 
establishment of unshakable totalitarian dictatorships. The net effect has been to make 
governments lose power in favor of organizations that are not sovereign and are not 

Roger Scruton does not disagree that technological globalization is an important force for change. 
He notes, for instance, that for the first time in centuries Islam appears to be "a single religious 
movement united around a single goal," and that "one major factor in producing this unwonted 
unity is Western civilization and the process of globalization that it has set in motion." According to 
him, this is a result of "Western prosperity, Western legal systems, Western forms of banking, and 
Western communications that human initiatives now reach so easily across frontiers to affect the 
lives and aspirations of people all over the globe." 

The irony of this is that "Western civilization depends on an idea of citizenship that is not global at 
all, but rooted in territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty." By contrast, Islam, which has been 
until recently remote from the Western world, is founded on an ideal "which is entirely global in its 
significance." Globalization, therefore, "offers militant Islam the opportunity that it has lacked 
since the Ottoman retreat from central Europe." It has brought into existence "a true Islamic umma, 


which identifies itself across borders in terms of a global form of legitimacy, and which attaches 
itself like a parasite to global institutions and techniques that are the by-products of Western 

Muslims such as Osama bin Laden "are products of the globalizing process, and Western 
civilization has so amplified their message that it travels with them around the world: [...] the 
techniques and infrastructure on which al Qaeda depends are the gifts of the new global 
institutions. It is Wall Street and Zurich that produced the network of international finance that 
enables Osama bin Laden to conceal his wealth and to deploy it anywhere in the world. It is 
Western enterprise with its multinational outreach that produced the technology that bin Laden has 
exploited so effectively against us. And it is Western science that developed the weapons of mass 
destruction he would dearly like to obtain. His wealth, too, would be inconceivable without the vast 
oil revenues brought to Saudi Arabia from the West, there to precipitate the building boom from 
which his father profited. And this very building boom, fueled by a population explosion that is 
itself the result of global trade, is a symbol of the West and its outreach.'" 

Van Creveld thinks that the nation state, born out of endless wars, originally "was merely a machine 
for imposing peace and quiet.'" During the later years of the eighteenth century, though, it met with 
nationalism. In the hands of people such as Herder, nationalism started as a harmless nostalgia for 
one's native customs; it was "a cultural movement, not a political one." However, between 1914 
and 1945 a total often years' fighting between nation states left perhaps 80 million people dead, a 
legacy that has discredited the idea of the nation state in the eyes of many 

Roger Scruton, on the other hand, tends to view the nation state favorably as an achievement, one 
that was not the inevitable result of technology but of a combination of many impulses, including 
cultural and religious institutions a great deal older than the Peace of Westphalia in the 17th 
century: Roman law and Christianity From its beginning in the Roman Empire, Christianity 
"internalized some of the ideas of imperial government;" in particular, it adopted "the greatest of all 
Roman achievements, which was the universal system of law as a means for the resolution of 
conflicts." St. Paul was a Roman citizen, versed in the law. 

"The Pauline church was designed, not as a sovereign body, but as a universal citizen, 
entitled to the protection of the secular and imperial powers but with no claim to 
displace those powers as the source of legal order. This corresponds to Christ's own 
vision: 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the 
things that are God's' (Matthew 22:21) ." 

This separation of church and state was from the outset an accepted doctrine of the church. Indeed, 
this separation partly created the church. According to Scruton, "the political process is an 
achievement - one that might not have occurred and has not occurred in those parts of the world 
where Roman law and Christian doctrine have left no mark." The Roman law was secular, 
unconcerned with the individual's religious status, and "could change in response to changing 
circumstances." "That conception of law is perhaps the most important force in the emergence of 
European forms of sovereignty." 

Roger Scruton believes that what separates "the West from the rest" is our idea of the personal state: 

"The personal state is characterized by a constitution, by a rule of law, and by a 
rotation of office-holders. Its decisions are collectively arrived at by a process that may 
not be wholly democratic, but which nevertheless includes every citizen and provides 
the means whereby each citizen can adopt the outcome as his own. Personal states have 
an inherent preference for negotiation over compulsion, and for peace over war. [The 
personal state] is answerable to its citizens, and its decisions can be imputed to them 
not least because they, as citizens, participate in the political process." 

For this democratic, political process to work there has to be a shared sense of identity, a 


community that can have common interests in the first place. Furthermore, the social contract 
makes sense only if future generations are included in it, as the purpose is to establish an enduring 

"There cannot be a society without this experience of membership. For it is this that 
enables me to regard the interests and needs of strangers as my concern; that enables 
me to recognize the authority of decisions and laws. " "Take away the experience of 
membership and the ground of the social contract disappears: social obligations 
become temporary, troubled, and defeasible, and the idea that one might be called upon 
to lay down one s life for a collection of strangers begins to border on the absurd. ." 

However, this social contract makes sense in the West "only because of the long history that 
endowed Western communities with a territorial rather than a religious loyalty.'''' The Constitution 
of the United States of America starts with the phrase "We, the people ..." And Scruton asks 

"Which people? Why, us; we who already belong, whose historic tie is now to be 
transcribed into law. We can make sense of the social contract only on the assumption 
of some such precontractual 'we. 

To make clear that such a membership in a personal state is far from the inevitable outcome of some 
impersonal technological development, Roger Scruton points out that it has no real counterpart in 
Islamic countries, where the ideal is the global Ummah and the Caliphate. Concepts such as the 
nation state or territorial integrity have no real equivalent in the fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, which 
helps explain why democracy is so hard to establish in Muslim countries. This is also a crucial 
reason why Muslims feel such a hatred for Israel, "an outreach of the West in the dar al-islam. The 
Islamic militants can therefore be satisfied with nothing short of the total destruction of Israel. For 
Israel is a nation-state established where no nation-state should be - a place where the only law 
should be the sharia, and the only loyalty that of Islam" 

Scruton notes, moreover, that this personal state is now under pressure, both from supranational 
institutions that are destroying the sense of membership from above, and massive immigration 
without assimilation that is destroying it from below, two trends that are happening at the same time 
and seemingly related. The European Union, among others, "is rapidly destroying the territorial 
jurisdictions and national loyalties that have, since the Enlightenment, formed the basis of 
European legitimacy, while putting no new form of membership in their place." And although it 
makes sense for individuals travelling from Third World countries to settle in Europe, they may thus 
unwittingly contribute to destroying what they came to enjoy the benefits of in the first place: 

"The political and economic advantages that lead people to seek asylum in the West are 
the result of territorial jurisdiction. Yet territorial jurisdictions can survive only if 
borders are controlled. Transnational legislation, acting together with the culture of 
repudiation, is therefore rapidly undermining the conditions that make Western 
freedoms durable." 

Martin van Creveld claims that "the State, which since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) has been the 
most important and most characteristic of all modern institutions, is dying. Wherever we look, 
existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart. Inside their borders, it 
seems that many states will soon no longer be able to protect the political, military, economic, 
social, and cultural life of their citizens. These developments may lead to upheavals as profound as 
those that took humanity out of the Middle Ages and into the Modern World." He thinks that the 
political construct known as the state "peaked between 1945 and 1975" and is now declining. 

"While many states are either imploding or coming together, all of them face increasing 
competition from other forms of organization. Some of those organizations are private, 
others are public. " "In the future, and to a growing extent, more and more these 


organizations can be expected to emancipate themselves from state control and to play 
an independent role.'" 

He also claims that an important factor in this process was the introduction of nuclear weapons. 
"For the first time in history, nuclear weapons permitted those who possessed them to annihilate 
each other.' 1 '' This turned warfare between the major nation states into suicide, thus negating 
Clausewitz's definition of it as a continuation of policy with other means. Nuclear armed states 
cannot so easily go to war against each other in order to extend or defend their interests. 

Roger Scruton, however, is deeply worried over this weakening of the nation state, since, as he 
points out, nobody has really given a convincing answer to what is going to replace it. In Europe in 
particular, a "process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining sovereignty of 
our parliaments' 1 '' and yet not replaced them with any functioning, democratic alternative. 

"Democracies owe their existence to national loyalties - the loyalties that are 
supposedly shared by government and opposition, by all political parties, and by the 
electorate as a whole. Yet everywhere the idea of the nation is under attack - either 
despised as an atavistic form of social unity, or even condemned as a cause of war and 
conflict, to be broken down and replaced by more enlightened and more universal forms 
of jurisdiction. But what, exactly, is supposed to replace the nation and the nation 

Scruton is pessimistic of the outcome if this process is allowed to continue: 

"We have reached the stage where our national jurisdiction is bombarded by laws from 
outside [...] even though many of them originate in despotic or criminal governments, 
and even though hardly any of them are concerned with the maintenance of peace. Even 
so we, the citizens, are powerless to reject these laws, and they, the legislators, are 
entirely unanswerable to us, who must obey them [...] The despotism is coming slowly: 
the anarchy will happen quickly in its wake, when law is finally detached from the 
experience of membership, becomes 'theirs' but not 'ours' and so loses all authority in 
the hearts of those whom it presumes to discipline." 

Personally, I do not disagree with Mr. van Creveld that technology by itself brings about changes. 
Yes, the nation state will be challenged in the 21st century because of technological globalization. It 
was the spread of medical advances and other improvements that paved the way for the massive 
population explosion in the 20th and early 21st centuries, unparalleled in the history of the human 
race. Technological globalization has also made it easier for these sometimes impoverished masses 
to see how things are in other parts of the world, and communication technology has made it easier 
for them to travel to distant lands. The massive migration waves we are witnessing now, large 
enough to destroy nations or even entire continents, are primarily the result of impersonal forces. 
This does of course not rule out the possibility that there are those who want to exploit it to further 
their own agenda, such as Muslims using migration of their excess population for demographic 
conquest of infidel countries. 

One subject where van Creveld seems to hit the nail on the head is the decline in both social and 
physical security associated with the retreat of the nation state. 

"More than anything else, however, the feeling that states are no longer as capable of 
holding their populations in check as they used to be is the growth of gated communities 
and a vast private security industry. The former are like medieval cities, presenting 

fortress-like facades to what their inhabitants obviously feel is the growing disorder 
outside; the latter has turned into a growth area where fortunes are being made, armed 

forces raised, weapons acquired, and power accumulated and not seldom projected." 


This steep rise in the number of private security forces is indeed well attested in many Western 
European nations in recent years, parallel with massive immigration and increased urban insecurity 
The state is not doing its job in upholding law and order. Europeans are thus paying for services 
they don't get, a situation that cannot last forever. 

Van Creveld also predicts the retreat of the welfare state and "growing importance of private 
welfare and charity on the one hand and of the family on the other. " This will probably happen, but 
it has not happened so far. Taxes and welfare payments remain as high as ever. The irony is that 
while we are being told that we should accept massive immigration because the nation state is 
obsolete, we are still supposed to pay for it. Many Western Europeans in 2006 typically pay 
between 35 to 55% of their income in taxes, and almost all of this goes to projects and institutions 
on a national level. If the nation state is dead, how come it gets half of my salary? The nation state 
must be the most expensive corpse in human history. It is also noteworthy that Leftist parties in 
Europe usually get the overwhelming majority of votes from Third World immigrants, who come 
precisely to enjoy the economic benefits these countries have to offer. The idea that the border 
should be kept open, since nation states are obsolete, but that citizens should still pay for it has 
proven to be a stroke of genius for Leftist parties, who can simply import voters and elect a new 
people. Native Europeans who pay their high tax rates will thus be funding their own colonization. 

Yes, technological globalization and the migration related to it will indeed pose serious challenges 
to the nation state in the future. They already are. But I am closer to Roger Scruton in not 
discounting the impact of technology, but in also placing emphasis on the role played by ideas and 
culture. In addition to the impersonal force of technology, there are also ideological attacks on the 
nation state as an institution that are very deliberate and not impersonal at all. Mr. van Creveld 
himself claims that the state "peaked" at some point after WW2. But even at this point, and before 
it, there were those who wanted to replace the nation state with something else. Marxists had been 
working towards this end for decades. And the beginnings of what would later become the 
European Union were laid in the 1950s, based on ideas from at least the 1920s. 

We keep hearing that the nation state is not just obsolete from a practical point of view, but an evil 
institution that divides mankind and creates racism, xenophobia and other intolerable differences. 
There was nothing "technologically inevitable" about the active establishment of the concept of 
Multiculturalism, for instance, which has prevented the assimilation of migrants and thus been 
facilitating the breakdown of the nation state on a micro-level while the EU has been breaking it 
down on the macro-level. To name one example, there is in Scandinavia a project to give the North 
European Samis a common law cutting across national borders. "Of a total of 75,000 Samis - 
formerly known as Lapps or Laplanders - in the Nordic region, 50,000 live in Norway, 20,000 in 
Sweden and the rest in Finland. Each of the three countries currently applies its own laws to Samis 
and the new text, after three years of negotiations, aims to harmonize their economic, cultural and 
linguistic rights regardless of national boundaries ." This is a deliberate step to undermine the 
nation state, and is not happening by accident. 

Likewise, we have heard in Europe for years that further EU integration was inevitable, and that 
those thinking otherwise were reactionary Europhobes out of touch with reality. As it turns out, it 
was neither inevitable nor desirable. There were people who had made deliberate plans to create a 
Euro-federation, and perhaps the unification of both sides of the Mediterranean through Muslim 
immigration, as Bat Ye'or has demonstrated in her book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis." It is quite 
possible that the European Union will simply fall apart during the coming decade, just as the Soviet 
Union did before it. But meanwhile, the "inevitable" experiment with a massive, unaccountable 
bureaucracy and massive immigration has almost brought Europe to its knees. 

In 1998, Javier Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, later EU foreign policy chief and known 
for his good relations with Saudi Arabia and Islamic organizations, stated that "the Westphalian 
system had its limits." In place of it, he praised "the European integration process" through the EU 
and "the willingness of states to cede elements of national sovereignty for the common good of a 


united Europe." In 2000, then-German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer argued that the system of 
European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete, and that the solution was a "closer meshing of 
vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European 
institutions." In 2004, the key ideologist of Al Qaeda, Lewis 'Atiyyatullah, said that the balance of 
power will change; the international system built up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will 
collapse, and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state. 
And all of this will occur within a few years. Shouldn't it give us pause for some reflection when 
Western leaders and Islamic terrorists express overlapping goals of undermining the nation state 

Martin van Creveld admits quite openly that he has a "Hegelian" outlook, after the philosopher 
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who was an important source of inspiration for Karl Marx in 
formulating his ideas of large, impersonal historical forces that could be scientifically predicted. I 
immediately become skeptical of people who predict massive changes in our democratic society 
and claim that this is "inevitable" and that those who think otherwise are "standing against the tide 
of history." We all remember how the ultimate triumph of Communism was "inevitable," and turned 
out to be nothing of the sort. And yet, tens of millions of people died because of this large-scale 
social experiment. In the worst case, the belief that one "knows" the way history is moving could 
lead to totalitarian impulses by trying to force the course of history in a particular direction. 

Roger Scruton comments on this trend, too: 

"At the same time our political elites speak and behave as though there were no such 
choice to be made -just as the communists did at the time of the Russian Revolution. 
They refer to an inevitable process, to irreversible changes, and while at times prepared 
to distinguish a fast' from a 'slow' track into the future, are clear in their minds that 
these two tracks lead to a single destination - the destination of transnational 
government, under a common system of law, in which national loyalty will be no more 
significant than support for a local football team?' 

This sense of "inevitability" is frequently implied in statements by members of the Euro-elites. 
Before the French referendum in 2005, a severe PM Raffarin warned French voters that if they did 
not ratify this Constitution, there was no second option. One year after the failed referendum on the 
EU constitution in the Netherlands, Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende indicated he would 
try to avoid a second referendum on a possible revised treaty text. Belgian prime minister Guy 
Verhofstadt pleaded for further ratification of the EU constitution as it stood. "Practically and 
politically, there is just one option: move forward with the ratification of this constitution," he 

Historically, there have been two types of democracy: Direct democracy, exercised by the people 
directly without intermediaries, and representative democracy where citizens do not vote on most 
decisions directly, but elect representatives they trust to do this for them, for a limited and pre- 
stipulated period of time. Direct democracy is not an exclusively Western idea. Elements of it have 
existed both in early Indian republics and in the Iroquois Confederacy in North America, to name 
some examples. However, direct democracies have almost always been relatively small 
communities, such as the Greek city-states where the word "democracy" itself was coined in the 5th 
century BC. The most famous was the ancient Athenian democracy, where voting rights were 
gradually expanded to all citizens, which meant perhaps one tenth of the population of the city. 
However, lasting democracies on a larger and more complex scale is a modern, Western invention, 
intimately tied to the nation state structure. 

Some thinkers have claimed that the world is now ripe for a "new" type of democracy, after the 
city-state and the nation state. Yet no-one has so far managed to present a convincing theoretical, far 
less a practical, example of how such a "post-national" democracy would function. As Scruton 
points out, in both these traditional types of democracy there has been a demos, a people with a 


shared sense of community and a pre-political loyalty that binds them together. It is unclear how the 
Multicultural and supranational European Union, tied together neither by shared language nor by 
shared history, is going to be democratic. Judging from our experiences with the EU so far, where 
most of the laws passed in Western Europe are now not made by the elected, national parliaments, 
but by unelected and unaccountable EU bureaucrats whose agenda is not always known, one is 
tempted to conclude that a post-national organization will also be post-democratic. One is also 
tempted to suspect that this will suit some of its creators just fine. 

Yes, it is true that the establishment of nation states and national identities were not always 
peaceful. But nation states have not had a monopoly on wars, which existed long before the nation 
state as a concept and would probably continue even if we removed it. Besides, we have these 
nation states now, and they have provided us with the only stable, large scale democracies in human 
history. Indeed, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 came about precisely after a series of devastating, 
pre-national religious wars. It is curious to notice that in our supposedly post-national age, we seem 
to be on the verge of entering a new religious war, an Islamic Jihad that is not tied to any nation 
state, but global in scope and in goals. Van Creveld also states that changes as vast as the ones he 
predicts, with the downfall of state power, "almost cannot take place without bloodshed" Isn't it 
likely that the downfall of the nation state could lead to tribalism and become at least as violent as 
its creation? It is more probable that abandoning nation states would lead to an end to our 
democratic system than that it would lead to an end to war. War, thus, is a poor excuse for its 

Some moderate attachment to your nation state does not have to be aggressive or negative, although 
it can be in certain circumstances. In fact, given the tensions we are now seeing caused by 
Multiculturalism and massive immigration, the next major war in Europe could well be triggered in 
part due to aggressive anti-nationalism, not aggressive nationalism. The downfall of the nation state, 
if it happens, will not bring us into a brave new world of global peace and brotherhood or the Age 
of Aquarius. It will be chaotic, painful and quite possibly bloody. More a throwback to the Middle 
Ages, the period before the rise of the nation states, complete with feudalism and tribalism, Muslim 
raids and people retreating into their own little fortresses while a few islands of sanity, similar to the 
monasteries a thousand years ago, will try to keep something of our cultural heritage alive. 

As usual, Roger Scruton gives the best answer: 

"My case is not that the nation state is the only answer to the problems of modern 
government, but that it is the only answer that has proved itself. We may feel tempted to 
experiment with other forms of political order. But experiments on this scale are 
dangerous, since nobody knows how to predict or to reverse the results of them. The 
French, Russian and Nazi revolutions were bold experiments; but in each case they led 
to the collapse of legal order, to mass murder at home and to belligerence abroad. The 
wise policy is to accept the arrangements, however imperfect, that have evolved 
through custom and inheritance, to improve them by small adjustments, but not to 
jeopardise them by large-scale alterations the consequences of which nobody can really 
envisage. The case for this approach was unanswerably set before us by Burke in his 
Reflections on the French Revolution, and subsequent history has repeatedly confirmed 
his view of things. The lesson that we should draw, therefore, is that since the nation 
state has proved to be a stable foundation of democratic government and secular 
jurisdiction, we ought to improve it, to adjust it, even to dilute it, but not to throw it 

I agree with Roger Scruton: The nation state will indeed be challenged, but that is not an argument 
for actively trying to get rid of it. It may be able, with some adjustments, to withstand the pressures 
from migration and globalization, but it will definitely not be able to withstand both this and the 
additional ideological onslaught we are witnessing now. Scruton believes that we in the West must 
"do what we can to reinforce the nation-state, which has brought the great benefits that distinguish 


the West from the rest, including the benefits of personal government, citizenship under a territorial 
jurisdiction, and government answerable to the people. " This means that we must "constrain the 
process of globalization.' 1 '' 

For Europeans, that would mean scrapping the European Union, which has transferred dangerous 
amounts of power to institutions and individuals not accountable to the people. For the West as a 
whole, it means taking a second look at our immigration policies and our near open borders, and 
rethinking whether organizations such as the Unites Nations will serve us well in the 21st century. 


Why the EU needs to be destroyed, and soon 

Monday, June 05, 2006 

I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost 
to Islam already I would be lying if I said that I didn't think this too sometimes, but I do see 
encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information 
such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that 
Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European 

The EU must die, or Europe will die. It's that simple. 

Bat Ye 'or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans 
have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and 
Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred 
power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by 
corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious 
disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely 
because of the EU. 

I have heard the term "neo-Feudalism" being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite 
groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to "the mob," and think that 
everything that's wrong with Europe is because of "populism," what others call democracy. These 
are also the people who created Eurabia and "forgot" to consult the public about these plans. The 
EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, 
disguised as something else. The real force behind the EU is to cede national sovereignty to a new 
ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy and a throwback to the pre-democratic age. 

I'm really worried about a complete collapse of the democratic system here. It has already been 
weakened by the EU, the UN etc. for a long time, and now we also have direct physical threats by 
Muslims to freedom of speech. Ordinary Europeans are no longer in control of our own fates. 
Sweden has for instance in reality ceased being a democratic country , in my view. We need to 
recapture this, or Europe is finished. 

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, former Soviet Dissident 
Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet 
Union, an EUSSR as some people call it. In a speech he delivered in Brussels, Belgium, Mr 
Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it 
develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state. 

"I am referring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the 
inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most 
people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet 
Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose 
of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The 
same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people 
"Europeans", whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of 
Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the 
opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the 
nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed 


feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so 

Bukovksy replied negatively to Belien's question whether the member countries of the EU didn't 
join the union voluntarily, and that the integration thus reflects the democratic will of Europeans. 
"No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at 
Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under 
enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in 
referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? 
Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage." 

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. 
According to him, some of these documents "show very clearly" that the idea of turning the 
European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements between the left-wing 
parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 
called our "common European home" "Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am 
not saying that it has a Gulag." 

"The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited 
Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the 
world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and 
economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of 
generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats - threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the 
only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the 
same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union 
had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their 
socialist goals." From 1985 onwards, "the Soviets came to an agreement with the left-wing parties 
that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. 
Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state." 

In January 1989, during a meeting between Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, 
former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d'Estaing is supposed to have stated that: "Europe is 
going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, 
and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Eastern 
European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared." As 
Vladimir Bukovksy points out, this was 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not 
even been drafted. "How the hell did Giscard d'Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years 
time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002- 
03]? It does smell of conspiracy, doesn't it?" 

Yes, it does smell of conspiracy. This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed talk 
of a political union to subdue the nation states as scaremongering. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former 
French President and chief drafter of the awful EU Constitution , an impenetrable brick of a book of 
hundreds of pages without any of the checks and balances of the American Constitution, has argued 
that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005 "was a mistake 
which will have to be corrected." "The Constitution will have to be given its second chance." He 
said the French people voted No out of an "error of judgement" and "ignorance", and insisted that 
"In the end, the text will be adopted." "It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when 
you make a mistake you can correct it." Mr Giscard d'Estaing indicated that the treaty could be put 
to French voters in a second referendum, or be ratified by the French parliament. "People have the 
right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake ," he said on a 


possible new referendum. Anybody who still questions whether Eurabia, the deliberate merger 
between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world described by Bat Ye'or, is "just a conspiracy theory" 
should read these statements by Giscard d'Estaing. Why should we be surprised if leading EU 
officials make behind-the-scenes agreements that affect the future of the entire continent, yet say 
nothing about this in public or flat out lie about their agenda? This is how the EU has been working 
for decades, indeed from the very beginning. 

From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French 
political elite still want to maintain their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the 
Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic 
backed the US position "They missed a good opportunity to shut up," adding "These countries have 
been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly 
with the American position." Jean Monnet, French economist who was never elected to public 
office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected 
pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity. Richard 
North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book The Great Deception: Can 
the European Union Survive? together with Christopher Booker, describes how Jean Monnet for 
years, at least from the 1920s, had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe." Although what 
Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an 
"anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting 
it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not 
scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty." 
In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as 
many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that. 

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards 
a European Union and commemorated in "Europe Day," contains phrases which state that it is "a 
first step in the federation of Europe", and that "this proposal will lead to the realization of the first 
concrete foundation of a European federation". As critics of the EU have noted, these political 
objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even 
know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and "yet for decades now the champions of 
EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. 
EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, 
Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws." The EU founders "were careful only to show their 
citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, 
as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to 
stop or derail it." Booker and North calls the European Union "a slow-motion coup d'etat: the most 
spectacular coup d'etat in history," designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic 
process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so in public. 

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels 
called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the "medieval" practice of European legislation being 
decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU's supreme law- 
making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain's laws (and the majority of laws in all Western 
European countries), "is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea 
and Cuba to pass laws in secret." As one of the signers put it: "We still have this medieval way of 
making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases 
people's sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking." According to British 
Conservative politician Daniel Hannan , this is how the EU was designed. "Its founding fathers 
understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a 
single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the 
voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands 


of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion." "Indeed, the EU's structure is not so much 
undemocratic as anti-democratic." 

Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that it looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and 
very consistent dismantlement of democracy. "Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. 
It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament 
or anyone." "Today's situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in 
by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is 
going to defend our freedoms?" He doesn't have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but 
largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. "The European Parliament is 
elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does 
it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous." "It is no accident 
that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the 
Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European 
Commission it looks like the Politburo," which was the real centre of power in the USSR, 
unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. 

Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas , has noted some of these similarities between 
EU and Soviet institutions, too. "When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 
2000, he accurately described the European Union as "the new European Soviet." He said this with 
obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a "common European 
home" stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals," as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. 
Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist." "It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist 
such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a "common 
European home" and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving 
ever closer to the Soviet model." "Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri 
Spaak, known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist," was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding 
fathers that "the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it 
behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling 
trade barriers: a 'common market.'" 

Meanwhile, the vast and inflated EU bureaucracy puts its tentacles into regulating every 
conceivable subject in Europe in great detail, not just the percentage of fat in yoghurt. Beer drinkers 
in Germany were frothing at the mouth during the summer of 2005 over EU plans to make Bavarian 
barmaids cover up. The aim of the proposed EU directive was to protect them from the sun's 
harmful rays. But the so-called "tan ban" was condemned as absurd by breweries, politicians — and 
the barmaids. It was eventually withdrawn. In Sweden, most clothes sold in shops contain labels 
with washing instructions . But the labels were viewed at the EU level as a hindrance to free trade, 
as it was prejudicial to foreign clothes sold in Sweden that don't have the labels. A poll 
commissioned by the Swedish Consumer Agency showed that eight out of ten Swedes read the 
washing instructions before they wash new clothes, and six out of ten read them before they buy 

These are examples of the more ridiculous or funny aspects of the EU machinery. But there is also a 
much more sinister side to it: The promotion of an official, "Eurabian" federal ideology promoting 
Multiculturalism , denouncing all those wanting to preserve their democracy at the nation state level 
as "xenophobes" and those wanting to limit Third World immigration as "racists." A report from the 
EU's racism watchdog said Europe must do more to combat racism and " Islamophobia. " New anti- 
discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in 
Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants 
accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to 
promote an official lexicon shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as "Islamic 



EU foreign policy chief Javier Solaria , after the ripples caused in early 2006 by the Muhammad 
cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, travelled to the Middle East and made 
joint statements with Islamic leaders that "freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion 
and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions." Solana said that he had discussed means 
to ensure that "religious symbols can be protected". Such steps could materialize through various 
mechanisms, "and maybe inside the new human rights commission created in the UN", he said. He 
held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of 
learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. In a meeting with the 
leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Solana said that 
"I expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt ", vowing "to reach out... to 
make sure that people's hearts and minds are not hurt again." Dutch daily De Telegraaf quoted the 
Dutch state secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai as characterising the appeasing tone used 
by Mr Solana as "shocking." Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, 
in a speech stated that "the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to 
the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse 
can lead these societies to explode into violence." The irony that he himself later was trying to 
curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship and speech 
codes apparently did not strike him. 

Journalist Nidra Poller , commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in 
France, noted other incidents of this deliberate, submissive attitude among EU leaders towards 
Muslim demands. "The Euro-Mediterranean "Dialogue" is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The 
European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls 
for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural 
relativism. . . that closely resembles the Muslim oumma. Isn't this a more accurate vision of what 
the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil 
of "Dialogue," what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word 

Intelligent people have been warning against this development for years. British philosopher Roger 
Scruton, in books such a The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat and 
England and the Need for Nations , warns that: "We in Europe stand at a turning point in our history. 
Our parliaments and legal systems still have territorial sovereignty. They still correspond to 
historical patterns of settlement that have enabled the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the 
British and the Italians to say 'we' and to know whom they mean by it. The opportunity remains to 
recuperate the legislative powers and the executive procedures that formed the nation states of 
Europe. At the same time, the process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining 
sovereignty of our parliaments and courts, that would annihilate the boundaries between our 
jurisdictions, that would dissolve the nationalities of Europe in a historically meaningless 
collectivity, united neither by language, nor by religion, nor by customs, nor by inherited 
sovereignty and law." "The case against the nation state has not been properly made, and the case 
for the transnational alternative has not been made at all. I believe therefore that we are on the brink 
of decisions that could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few 
years in which to take stock of our inheritance and to reassume it." 

Czech President Vaclav Klaus , an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, has said that 
the EU enlargement with ten new member states, mostly former Communist countries in Central 
and Eastern Europe, "increased the EU's democratic deficit." He warned that "The EU has 
continued - at an accelerated speed - to expand the number of pages of its legislation which now 
deals with almost every aspect of human life and human activities." Mr Klaus also stressed that the 


nation-state "is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of 'Reichs,' 
empires and conglomerates of states)." 

According to Vladimir Bukovksy, "the most likely outcome is that there will be an economic 
collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. 
The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the 
bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse." "I have no doubt about it. There will be 
a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget 
that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just 
think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be 
huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries 
now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if 
there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much 
ethnic strife that the mind boggles." "I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot 
be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be 

Richard North writes that "If, against all the odds, the Constitution does go ahead, it would be like 
locking down the lid on a pressure cooker and sealing off the safety valve. The break-up might take 
a little longer, but it will be explosive when it comes." In the book he co-authored with Christopher 
Booker, the authors conclude: "Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short, evoking an 
image of Commissoners sitting like Plato's Guardians, guiding the affairs of Europe on some 
rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet 
had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own 
bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities for individuals and collectives 
to outwit and exploit their fellow men; partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of 
those countries who knew how to 'work the system', among whom the Irish and the Spanish had 
done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled master. The one thing above all the 
project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest 
sense democratic." They believe this is why the EU is doomed and why it will "leave a terrible 
devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to 

I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause "instability" in Europe. It will. But 
we will probably end up with some "instability" anyway, given the number of Muslims here that the 
EUrabians have helped in. Besides, if "stability" means a steady course towards Eurabia, I'll take 
some instability any day. I can't see that we have any choice. The truth is that Europe has got itself 
into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful years and decades ahead regardless 
of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where Europe prevails and pain where 
Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity. 

Some would hope that we could "reform" the EU, keep the "positive" aspects of it and not "throw 
out the baby with the bath water." I beg to differ. I was naive, too, once, and thought there were 
positive aspects to the EU. There aren't, or not nearly enough to keep any of it. 

The EU is all bath water, no baby. 

Which is why, as Bukovksy says, "the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it 
collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick 
because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still 
simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas." 


The creation of Eurabia is the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two 
thousand years, since the age of Brutus and Judas. In Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, Brutus 
and Judas Iscariot were placed in the harshest section of Hell, even below Muhammad. If Dante 
were alive today, he'd probably make some room for Valery Giscard d'Estaing and his Eurabian 
cronies in the Hot Place. The EU elites see themselves as Julius Caesar or Octavian, but end up 
being Brutus. They want to recreate the Roman Empire on both sides of the Mediterranean, bound 
together by some vague references to a "shared Greek heritage." Instead, they are creating a 
civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are overrunning the 
continent. The EU wants to recreate the Roman Empire and ends up creating the second fall of 

Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The 
European Union. 


In praise of the first and second amendments 

Thu, 2006-07-20 07:40 

In a true, totalitarian society such as the old Soviet Union, crime rates are usually low because of 
the crushing state control of all its citizens. Supposedly, street crime in Moscow in the USSR was 
rare, probably because the state itself was the biggest criminal. In contrast, in the European Union 
of today, which is not a totalitarian society, at least not yet , crime rates are booming in major cities. 
At the same time, authorities are stepping up censorship efforts , openly talking about media "speech 
codes" and aggressively slapping labels such as "racism" or "xenophobia" on anybody daring to 
criticize the immigration policies or pointing out the inadequate response to Muslim gang violence. 

There is obviously a connection here: The less control the authorities have with Muslims, the more 
control they want to exercise over non-Muslims. As problems in Europe get worse, which they will, 
the EU will move in an increasingly repressive direction until it either becomes a true, totalitarian 
entity or falls apart. This strange mix of powerful censorship of public debate, yet little control over 
public law and order, has by some been labelled anarcho-tyranny. 

While Islamic groups in Britain openly brag about how they are going to subdue the country by 
violent means or call for beheading those insulting Islam, Bryan Cork, 49, of Carlisle, Cumbria, in 
the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, 
"Proud to be British," and "Go back to where you came from." One British court ruled that even use 
of the word "immigrant" as an insult could amount to proof of racial hostility. 

In Belgium, a Turkish-born Catholic priest , Pere Samuel, has been prosecuted for "incitement to 
racist hatred" by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), 
because of a remark he made in a 2002 television interview when he said: "Every thoroughly 
islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The 
latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority." He claims Muslims are invading 
Europe and warns for an impending civil war. 

Samuel is one of the few Christians left speaking Aramaic, the language of Jesus, at home. Aramaic 
was once the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East, similar to what English is 
today or Latin was in Europe in centuries ago. It has now given way to Arabic, but according to 
some researchers, Syriac or Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran. When the Koran was 
composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language. Aramaic, however, was still widely used 
between the 4th and 7th centuries in Western Asia. Ibn Warraq estimates that up to 20% of the 
Koran is incomprehensible even to educated Arabs because parts of it was, in fact, originally written 
in another, though related, language before Muhammad was born. 

The author of the most important book on the subject - a German professor of ancient Semitic and 
Arabic languages - prefers to write under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg . Not because of 
lawsuits of "racism," but out of plain fear for Muslim violence. According to Luxenberg, the 
chapters or suras of the Koran usually ascribed to the Mecca period, which are also the most 
tolerant and non-violent ones as opposed to the much harsher and more violent chapters from 
Medina, are not "Islamic" at all, but Christian: 

"In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts 
from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. [. . .] Its socio- 
political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added 
later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a 
new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an 
inroad into Arabic society." 


Writer Oriana Fallaci has been indicted by a judge in her native Italy for "vilification" of Islam, 
because of a book she wrote called The Force of Reason . Ms Fallaci states that "Europe is no longer 
Europe, it is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a 
physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to the invaders has poisoned 
democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of 

In 2002, a French group, Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, tried 
unsuccessfully to get an earlier book by Fallaci, "The Rage and the Pride" banned. The following 
year, Swiss officials, under pressure from Muslim groups in that country, asked that she be 
extradited for trial; the Italian Minister of Justice refused the request. 

In Australia, a Christian pastor who was ordered to apologize for vilifying Muslims said he would 
go to jail rather than say sorry for his comments. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 
(VCAT) deputy president Michael Higgins ordered two pastors to apologize for comments they 
made in a speech, on a website and in a newsletter. The tribunal found Muslims were vilified by 
claims that Muslims were training to take over Australia, encouraging domestic violence and that 
Islam was an inherently violent religion. The case was the first to be heard by VCAT since the 
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act took effect in 2002. A press release later warned that the human 
rights of ordinary Australians, in particular the right to free speech, were threatened by this 

It is said that free societies are stronger than oppressive societies. This is probably true. However, in 
the West at the beginning of the 21st century, formal and informal censorship of important issues 
has become rampant. Without freedom of speech, democracy cannot function. The West is weak 
because it is no longer free. 

George Orwell said: "If freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that 
people do not want to hear," and he was right. Multiculturalists who claim that freedom of speech 
does not include the freedom to offend others are wrong. In the doctrine of John Stuart Mill's On 
Liberty , published in 1859, the right to freedom of expression and its conditions are stated clearly. 
The most fundamental principle of a freely operating liberal society is the right to the "freedom of 
opinion." The only exception in which Mill conceived such freedom to be limited was if it were to 
impose severe harm onto others - and he declared this to be a rare thing. 

Gerard Alexander warns against what he calls "illiberal Europe," by which he means the dramatic 
expansion of laws to sanction speech that "incites hatred" against groups based on their religion, 
race or ethnicity. Such laws have been passed in Western European nations since the 1970s. "The 
real danger posed by Europe's speech laws is not so much guilty verdicts as an insidious chilling of 
political debate, as people censor themselves in order to avoid legal charges and the stigma and 
expense they bring." 

This "swirl of speech-law charges, lawsuits, and investigations" is now sustained by an 
"antiracism" industry. "Europe's speech laws are written and applied in ways that leave activists on 
the political left free to whitewash crimes of leftist regimes, incite hatred against their domestic 
bogeymen of the well-to-do, and luridly stereotype their international bogeymen, often with history- 
distorting falsehoods such as fictitious claims of genocide said to be committed by the United States 
and Israel. It may be no coincidence that Socialist and extreme-left parties have played central roles 
in the design of speech laws." 


According to Alexander, this trend represents "the greatest erosion of democratic practice in the 
world's advanced democracies" since WW2. He recommends that reform-minded Europeans should 
use "the example of U.S. practice, which tolerates even loathsome speech." I agree with him. It is 
time Europeans put aside some of our prejudice against the USA and adopt something similar to the 
First Amendment in the American Constitution , securing the right to free speech. 

However, although this would indeed represent a great step forward, we should not be so nai've as to 
believe that this will remove all problems. The United States is a nation of laws, but also a nation of 
lawyers and lawsuits. Even though they may not have laws against "hate speech," they have other 
laws that can, with some creativity, be used for legal intimidation by Muslim organizations backed 
by Saudi Arabian oil money. And there is always the plain, physical fear of Islamic terror attacks. 

At Ohio State University, a librarian was accused of sexual harassment after he recommended four 
best-selling conservative books for a freshman reading program, among them The Professors by 
David Horowitz and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or. He made the recommendations 
after others had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective. The librarian was put 
under "investigation" by the OSU after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and 
harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel "unsafe." 

Ahmed Mansour fled his native Egypt only to receive death threats from Muslims in the USA. 
Along with several organizations, Mansour was sued for defamation by the Islamic Society of 
Boston, which accused them all of conspiring to deny freedom of worship to Boston-area Muslims 
by criticizing plans for a big new mosque. The decision to pursue Mansour came after his 
comments at a press conference in 2004. He had gone to pray at the ISB's current mosque in 
Cambridge, and described what he had observed: "I am here to testify that this radical culture is 
here, inside this society," he said. He had seen "Arabic-language newsletters filled with hatred 
against the United States." Books and videos in the mosque's library promoted "fanatical beliefs 
that insult other people's religions." 

An animated image of Muhammad created for a two-part episode of series South Park entitled 
" Cartoon Wars " was censored before the episodes aired on TV. Series creators Trey Parker and Matt 
Stone criticized Comedy Central as "cowardly" for censoring the episode, which they intended as a 
commentary on the bloodshed sparked earlier that year by editorial cartoons in Danish newspaper 
Jyllands-Posten. Parker and Stone said they were deeply disappointed that Comedy Central, like 
most media outlets in the US, had succumbed to a perceived threat of violence in censoring the 
images. Comedy Central later refused to show the image of Muhammad in reruns of the two-part 
"Cartoon Wars" episode. The network said it would remain blacked out in future airings and DVD 

The case of the Danish cartoons was closely related to another Islamic assault on free speech, the 
death sentence given by Iranian leader the Ayathollah Khomeini to Salman Rushdie for his 
"blasphemous" book The Satanic Verses in 1989. The weak and feeble response of the West then, 
when Muslims "only" threatened one author and his publishers, paved the way for the situation in 
2006, when Muslims felt many enough and strong enough in the West to threaten entire countries. 
There were warnings that this would happen even in the early 1990s, but these warnings were not 

Koenraad Elst describes how, in Amsterdam in 1992, Mohamed Rasoel, a Pakistani immigrant, was 
charged with racism for his book The Downfall of the Netherlands, Land of the Naive Fools . The 
judge decided that Rasoel had made "unjustified generalizations" by contrasting "soft Dutchmen" 
with "crude, cruel, corrupt and bloodthirsty Muslims" and that it was a racist pamphlet written with 
the sole purpose of inciting hatred. 


Mohamed Rasoel had warned in his book that the Dutch were mistaken to tolerate the 
mushrooming growth of their Muslim population. He predicted that this would lead to a civil war 
and, at best, the country's partition. This was during the heat of the Rushdie controversy. The book 
was taken from the shelves in most bookstores throughout the Netherlands, and quickly forgotten 

Mohamed Rasoel himself stated that: "It proves that the general thrust of my book is correct, that 
Dutch society is changing and becoming less tolerant. Freedom of opinion is already being 
sacrificed. I don't blame this state attorney, he is a nice man but rather dumb and naive like most 
Dutchmen. [...] Muslims are allowed to shout: kill Rushdie. [...] When Muslims say on TV that all 
Dutch women are whores, it is allowed. [...] It is ridiculous and scandalous that I have to justify 
myself in court for discrimination of Muslims." 

In the book, Rasoel stated that "Being offended is sometimes purely a form of aggression." A fitting 
commentary to both the Rushdie situation and the cartoon Jihad nearly a generation later. "The 
future is already here. The Netherlands is no longer the safe nation of the past, where a girl could 
walk alone through the park at night." "The Dutch, and I mean those who aren't six feet under 
ground already, have all in all turned into a frightened people, afraid to make jokes about Muslims, 
to offend them, fool them, and criticize or correct them." "Dutchmen have basically been driven 
into a corner by the Muslims." 

Remember, this was written around 1990. And Rasoel warned that it would get worse. Much worse. 

"The behavior of the Muslims currently hasn't fully deployed yet, and can be compared to the one 
of the boy who is new at a club. It takes a while before the ice is broken and he starts to move more 
at ease, until at last his true nature becomes visible." "And though the Dutch will fight for their 
norms and values, the Muslims will not only surprise them once again with their barbaric methods, 
they will punch straight through their soft and decent defense." "Afterwards the Muslims will 
steadily continue to overmaster and dominate the Dutch, who will have no choice but to participate 
in a game of tug of war where they will steadily lose ground." "By 2050 there will be no 
Netherlands left, or at least, nothing worth calling it that." 

Maybe, if the Dutch and other Westerners had been able to widely read and debate these prophetic 
words of Mohammed Rasoel, critics of Islam such as Pirn Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh would still 
be alive today, and Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others would not have to live with 24 hours 
police protection. 

The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship 
efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic 
security of their citizenry. If their governments are no longer capable of protecting them and their 
freedom of speech, Europeans may have to arm themselves to do this on their own. Michael 
Moore's books, ridiculing American "gun nuts," are bestsellers in Europe. Sadly, The Bill of Rights 
is less popular reading. Perhaps the time has come for Europeans to also take a second look at the 
Second Amendment - The right for the people to keep and bear arms. 


The welfare state is dead, long live the welfare state 

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 

I have heard comments from people who thought Fjordman was from Sweden, because I write at 
least as much about Sweden as I do about my own country, Norway There are several reasons for 
this. The most important one is that Sweden is probably one of the worst, if not the worst, country 
in the Western world when it comes to Political Correctness. Norway is pretty bad, Sweden is 
absolutely insane. Which makes it fun to write about. 

The other reason is that Sweden is the largest and best known of the Scandinavian countries. When 
people in Canada or the USA discuss the Scandinavian welfare state, they usually talk about the 
"Swedish model," not the "Norwegian model." The Swedish welfare state was presented during the 
Cold War as a middle way between capitalism and Communism. When this model of a society 
collapses - and it will collapse - it is thus not just the Swedish welfare state that will collapse but 
the symbol of Sweden, the showcase of an entire ideological world view. 

Besides, Norway is a special case in the Western world since it is the world's third largest exporter 
of oil, next to Saudi Arabia and Russia. Norway's considerable oil wealth will keep the welfare state 
artificially afloat for years to come. I will thus mainly concentrate on Sweden in my writings below. 

Let me first say that there are positive aspects to the welfare state model. It would be hypocritical of 
me to say anything else, as I have enjoyed some of its benefits by growing up in one. It is also not 
entirely incorrect to say that it has worked better in Scandinavia than anywhere else. Still, my view 
is that there are critical flaws to this model. Although they may not bring the system down right 
away, they will do so over time. My bet is that we are approaching the point where the Swedish 
welfare state will cease to function. 

Even if you consider a national welfare state to be a totally closed system without migration in our 
out and without international competition - which isn't possible, of course - there are internal flaws 
that will, over time, weaken the structure. 

Judging from the experiences in Scandinavia, the welfare state worked to some extent because it 
was based in small and ethnically homogenous nations, with a strong cultural and religious 
(Protestant) work ethic which had just experienced several generations of a booming capitalist 
economy. These traits kept the system afloat for decades, but the work ethic and the sense of duty 
slowly got eroded and replaced by a sense of rights, while the high taxation and the passivity bred 
by the system eroded initiative and the will to take risks. Again, these flaws are inherent to the 
model. They make time to develop, but they will, eventually. 

The welfare state will also be subject to external pressures. International competition will make a 
welfare state economy less competitive because the high tax rates in the will stifle economic 

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew points this out: "In the end, the workers, whether they like it or not, will 
realize, that the cosy European world which they created after the war has come to an end." "The 
social contract that led to workers sitting on the boards of companies and everybody being happy 
rested on this condition: I work hard, I restore Germany's prosperity, and you, the state, you have to 
look after me. I'm entitled to go to Baden Baden for spa recuperation one month every year. This 
old system was gone in the blink of an eye when two to three billion people joined the race — one 
billion in China, one billion in India and over half-a-billion in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union." One study warned that Europe risks becoming a "second- or third-world region" within a 


generation because strict labor laws are preventing companies from restructuring properly. David 
Lewin, who co-wrote the study, said European countries were falling behind the United States 
because of a lack of investment in information and communication technology (ICT). Companies in 
Europe had to pursue a policy of "creative destruction" to change the way they do business and 
learn from the "hire and fire" culture of the US to compete with emerging Asian companies. Mr 
Lewin added: "It is all down to employment law. In the US if you are made redundant three or four 
times that is normal, but in Europe there is a stigma." 

Another factor is immigration, and welfare states tend to attract the "wrong" kind of immigrants, 
those who would be likely to piggyback on the system, while the most dynamic immigrants tend 
naturally to travel to countries where they pay less tax and thus receive more in return for their work 
and efforts. 

A Danish think tank has estimated that the net cost of immigration was up to 50 billion kroner every 
year, and those were cautious estimates. A study found that every other immigrant from the Third 
World — especially from Muslim countries — lacked the qualifications for even the most menial jobs 
on the organized Danish labor market. 

In Norway, social benefits and salaries for low-skilled workers are among the highest in the world. 
At the same time, the salaries for highly skilled workers are comparatively lower and the taxes are 
high. This compressed salary structure is the result of decades of Socialist policies in Scandinavia. 
It leads to attracting people with lower skills and little education, who tend to become a burden on 
the welfare state, but also makes the countries less attractive for researchers and scientists. 

The Western European welfare states thus get crushed by two opposing forces of globalization: The 
success of the Asian countries, which push us out of global markets, and the failure of Africa and 
the Islamic world, which send much of their excess population to us and push us out of our own 

A welfare state such as the Swedish one will thus experience a long, slow decline due to its inherent 
flaws, and a faster and more dangerous disintegration with the introduction of mass immigration of 
persons who do not share any group loyalty with that nation state and do not have the cultural 
background necessary to uphold the welfare state. The natives will, at the same time, become less 
willing to pay huge sums if this is seen as supporting other ethnic groups, and may eventually 
decide to leave the country. A welfare state can only work in an ethnically homogenous society with 
high levels of mutual trust. Immigration will remove much of this trust. 

Nima Sanandaji , an Iranian who has lived for some years in Sweden, describes how during the 
1870s Sweden was an impoverished nation. All this changed as capitalism was introduced in the 
country. "Free markets, property rights and the rule of law created an environment where the 
Swedish people could achieve a long period of rapid economic development." After WW2, the 
Social Democrats initiated a large-scale expansion of the welfare state. Income taxes doubled 
between 1960 and 1990, rising from approximately 30 to 60 percent. 

"P.J. O'Rourke once wrote that no American would work if they lived in a system such as the 
Swedish welfare state, where government is 'generous' with benefits to the unemployed, those on 
sick leave and those that have retired. What makes Sweden interesting is that for a long time people 
were very reluctant to take advantage of the system. The Swedish population had a strong tradition 
of entrepreneurship and hard work and continued to work hard even though they now had the option 
to live off government. But people do adapt their morality to maximize their benefits in the 
economic system in which they live, although this might take a generation or so." 


"According to the Institute for Labour Policies the average salary of a person who has studied at a 
university for three years is only five percent higher of somebody who is uneducated." "The 
European welfare systems have functioned because of strong work ethics that made people reluctant 
to exploit them," according to Sanandaji . 

I have criticized Johan Norberg, a free-market champion and Libertarian, for having a naive view of 
immigration. He does. But he can still have some insights into flaws of the welfare state. "The 
architects of the cradle-to-grave Swedish system said that if it couldn't work there, it wouldn't work 
anywhere. Well, it didn't and it doesn't." "For a while, it performed well for the very reason that its 
master planners, Nobel Prize winners Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, thought it would: that Sweden was 
the ideal country to try the welfare state experiment." "The Swedish population was small and 
homogeneous, with high levels of trust in one another and the government," Johan Norberg 
explains. It also had a culture with a strong Protestant work ethic, a trait it shared with the other 
Scandinavian countries. Even with all that, "the Swedish model is rotting from within," Norberg 

Norberg says it would be unwise to abandon the work ethic, because once we have enough money 
to satisfy basic needs, such as food and health, what makes us happy is not the money but the 
activities we engage in to get it. Human beings like solving problems, planning and hoping for the 
future, and work and careers enable us to do this. "If government becomes too paternalistic it 
deprives us of the need to be responsible for ourselves," he says. "Then two things happen. We 
don't get those challenges that seem to make us happier. And after a while we might even lose our 
capacity to make choices, which in terms of happiness is the worst thing that can happen to a 

In his classic The True Believer , Eric Hoffer writes something similar: "The poor on the borderline 
of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to 
be wholly free from a sense of futility. The goals are concrete and immediate. Every meal is a 
fulfillment; to go to sleep on a full stomach is a triumph; and every windfall a miracle. What need 
could they have for 'an inspiring super individual goal which could give meaning and dignity to 
their lives?' They are immune to the appeal of a mass movement." "There is perhaps no more 
reliable indicator of a society's ripeness for a mass movement than the prevalence of unrelieved 
boredom. In almost all the descriptions of the periods preceding the rise of mass movements there is 
reference to vast ennui; and in their earliest stages mass movements are more likely to find 
sympathizers and support among the bored than among the exploited and oppressed." 

Is this boredom, the sense of futility and the meaningless of life in the nanny state one of the causes 
of the famously high suicide rates in Scandinavia? Theodore Dalrymple thinks so: "One reason for 
the epidemic of self-destructiveness that has struck British, if not the whole of Western, society, is 
the avoidance of boredom. For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot 
invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no 
religious belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and the creation of 
crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness." 

Dalrymple identifies the welfare state as one of the root causes of Europe's problems: "The 
principal motor of Europe's current decline is, in my view, its obsession with social security , which 
has created rigid social and economic systems that are extremely resistant to change. And this 
obsession with social security is in turn connected with a fear of the future: for the future has now 
brought Europe catastrophe and relative decline for more than a century." 

"But there are other threats to Europe. The miserabilist view of the European past, in which 
achievement on a truly stupendous scale is disregarded in favor of massacre, oppression and 


injustice, deprives the population of any sense of pride or tradition to which it might contribute or 
which might be worth preserving. This loss of cultural confidence is particularly important at a time 
of mass immigration from very alien cultures." 

Observer Per Bylund notes how the welfare state corrupted Sweden: "Old people in Sweden say 
that to be Swedish means to supply for your own, to take care of yourself, and never be a burden on 
anyone else's shoulders. Independence and hard work was the common perception of a decent life, 
and the common perception of morality." The slogan in Norway was "Do your duty, demand your 
rights." Over time, "duty" tends to become eroded, leaving only the sense of "rights." According to 
Bylund, "The problem is that the welfare state was created and it would dramatically change 
people's lives and affect their morality in a fundamental way." 

"People seem unable to enjoy life without responsibility for one's actions and choices, and it is 
impossible to feel pride and independence without having the means to control one's life. The 
welfare state has created a dependent people utterly incapable of finding value in life; instead, they 
find themselves incapable of typical human feelings such as pride, honor, and empathy. These 
feelings, along with the means to create meaning to life, have been taken over by the welfare state." 
"Perhaps this explains why such a large part of the young population now consumes antidepressant 
medication, without which they are unable to function normally in social situations. And 
presumably it explains why the number of suicides among very young people who never really 
knew their parents." 

This last point, the absence of biological parents because the state becomes your substitute mother 
and father, is highly significant. Bylund points out that "most of us were not raised by our parents at 
all. We were raised by the authorities in state daycare centers from the time of infancy; then pushed 
on to public schools, public high schools, and public universities; and later to employment in the 
public sector and more education via the powerful labor unions and their educational associations. 
The state is ever-present and is to many the only means of survival — and its welfare benefits the 
only possible way to gain independence." 

A significant number of the problems we are witnessing now in Scandinavia and in Western Europe 
in general have their roots in the ideology of the all-encompassing state. Education teaches people 
to respect the consensus, not sabotage it. As Roland Huntford demonstrated in the book The New 
Totalitarians, Sweden is a "peaceful Utopia" controlled by a bureaucracy which actively discourages 
all signs of individuality and dissent. 

This totalitarian impulse was implicit in the welfare state from its very inception. Marcos Cantera 
Carlomagno in 1995 published a PhD thesis at Lund University describing a series of letters sent by 
Per Albin Hansson , leader of the Swedish Social Democrats who was Prime Minister between 1932 
and 1946 and worked for the establishment of "Folkhemmet," the People's Home, as the Swedish 
welfare state model became known as. The embarrassing fact was that Hansson was a very dear pen 
pal with Italy's Fascist leader Mussolini during the 1930s, and praised the corporate, Fascist system 
where the entire economy and each individual were intimately tied to and subordinate to the state. 
Carlomagno 's work was totally ignored by the entire media and political establishment in Sweden 
when it appeared in the 1990s. 

The Social Democrats have ruled Sweden, with only a few years exception, in the 74 years since 
1932, and have such a dominant position in the country that some Swedes have warned against 
signs of a "one -party-state." Professor Bo Rothstein at the University of Gothenburg complains that 
the Social Democratic government "controls in detail" much of the research going on in the country, 
by hand-picking which researchers who will receive funding and be hired for certain projects. 
Rothstein fears that this politicization of research is so widespread that it is damaging the vitality of 


the Swedish democracy. 

This close ideological connection between Socialists and Fascists might surprise those who have 
been brought up to believe that these ideologies are polar opposites. In fact, they have more in 
common with each other than either have with classical liberalism, not the least the tendency to 
reduce the individual to an organic part of the state. F.A. Hayek pointed this out in The Road to 

"In Germany and Italy the Nazis and the Fascists did indeed not have much to invent. The usages of 
the new political movements which pervaded all aspects of life had in both countries already been 
introduced by the socialists. The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the 
individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything (...) was first 
put into practice by the socialists. 

It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children from the tenderest age into 
political organisations to make sure they grew up as good proletarians. It was not the Fascists but 
the socialists who first thought of organising sports and games, football and hiking, in party clubs 
where the members would not be infected by other views. It was the socialists who first insisted that 
the party member should distinguish himself from others by the modes of greeting and the forms of 
address. It was they who by their organisation of "cells" and devices for the permanent supervision 
of private life created the prototype of the totalitarian party." 

Ulf Nilson , columnist in newspaper Expressen and one of the saner voices in Sweden, thinks that: 
"Any idiot can see that Swedish leaders - starting with [Social Democratic PM] Palme and his gang 
- have been waging a war on the family, father, mother, child, since at least the 70 's. The law of 
individual taxation from 1971 did in reality abolish stay-at-home-moms. The overwhelming 
majority of families became dependent on two salaries. Thus the child was collectivized; children 
became the property of the state and a state responsibility." This thinking was "exemplified by the 
famous citation: "You (the state) can't possible be thinking of unloading the burden of responsibility 
onto the parents?" 

Policy analyst Jill Kirby claims that this " Nationalisation of Childhood " is happening in welfare 
state Britain, too: "It builds on the Chancellor's doctrine of "progressive universalism", rooted in 
the belief that the state must intervene in the lives of all, for their own good." "The Marxist doctrine 
was brought up to date by Anthony Giddens, one of the architects of New Labour, in 1998. In The 
Third Way, Giddens explained how the "democratisation" of the family demands that responsibility 
for childcare be shared not only between men and women but also between parents and nonparents. 
Giddens also proposed that in the democratic family, parents would have to "negotiate" for 
authority over their children." 

"The role of parents would, in effect, be subsidiary to the state." "In the guise of a caring, child- 
centred administration, constantly proclaiming its desire to support parents and reduce inequality, 
this Government is effecting a radical change in the balance of authority between parents, children 
and the state. The nationalisation of childhood is no longer a Marxist dream; it is becoming a British 

0ystein Djupedal, Minister of Education and Research in Norway's current Leftist coalition 
government, stated in public that: "I think that it's simply a mistaken view of child-rearing to 
believe that parents are the best to raise children. Children need a village, said Hillary Clinton. But 
we don't have that. The village of our time is the kindergarten." He later retracted this statement 
after public reactions, saying that parents have the main responsibility for raising their children, but 
that "kindergartens are a fantastic device for children, and it is good for children to spend time in 


kindergarten before [they] start school." The Ministry of Education and Research in Norway is 
responsible for nursery education, primary and lower secondary education, day-care facilities for 
school children, upper secondary education and institutions of higher education. Basically, 
everything Norwegians learn from kindergarten to Universities and PhD level. 

Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept , who lives in Norway, has heard Norwegians 
talk a lot about "solidarity," but when his partner was attacked in the middle of a rush-hour crowd in 
Oslo, nobody came to his aid. "Solidarity doesn't just mean a spirit of community - it means a spirit 
of community mediated through government institutions." "There does seem to exist in Western 
Europe a deadly pattern of passivity that derives from a habit - born of life in a welfare state - of 
expecting the government to take care of things." 

Americans say "God bless America" or "In God we trust." Europeans giggle and think it's funny or 
silly. But we have some buzzwords of our own. "Solidarity," for instance. Is the welfare state, on 
some deep, subconscious level, a substitute for God? An omnipresent state instead of an 
omnipresent God? Europeans lost belief in God in Auschwitz and the trenches of WW1. We no 
longer trust in God, so we put our trust in the welfare state, to create a small oasis of security on a 
continent that has had such a turbulent history. The irony is that it worked well only in countries 
which used to have a strong religious base, a Protestant work ethic and sense of duty. As that 
religious heritage gets weakened, so does a necessary precondition for the welfare state. 

It will do nothing to "provide security" in the face of Islamic Jihad, however. The welfare state 
breeds passivity. For rulers, this can be quite useful. The official reason for the welfare state is to 
alleviate poverty. This may be part of the reason, but we should remember that a powerful state 
bureaucracy which deals with all aspects of life also leaves a great deal of power to those on top of 
that bureaucracy, ruling people who have been pacified and emasculated by decades of state 
indoctrination and interference in their private lives. I suspect one of the reasons why Europeans put 
up with a powerful EU bureaucracy running much of Europe's affairs is that we have already been 
accustomed with this on a national level. 

Anna Ekelund in the newspaper Aftonbladet writes that: "We are a people who allow ourselves to be 
insulted by the government on a daily basis. We are not expected to be capable of thinking for 
ourselves, of deciding what we will read, or managing our own money. We pay up and smile in 
deference to the "better schools and healthcare" slogan, only to be met in the autumn of our lives 
with a shrug of the shoulders and the final humiliation. So we direct our outrage instead towards 
gender hierarchy and pornography." "Swedes are as co-dependent as an alcoholic's wife. Yet we do 
not hurry to the ballot box to remove the prevailing systems. Not because we don't want to but 
because too many of us have painted ourselves into their corners." 

In Norway, people are not allowed to buy beer in shops after 8 pm. This is because, well, I don't 
know why really, probably because the nanny state wants to look after us and make sure we don't 
drink too much or something. An adult person can thus walk into a shop at 08.01 pm, the beer is 
there but you are not allowed to buy it. Norwegians accept this, just as we accept that the state 
keeps official lists of which names you are allowed to use for your children, what kind of toilet you 
have in your cottage etc. We are used to following rules, and do so too frequently without question. 

To demonstrate just how far acceptance of state interference has gone, Norway will shut down 
private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007 under an 
unprecedented equality drive. Former Minister Laila Daavoey said that all state-controlled firms 
had already complied. "If we can recruit women to our state companies why can't private 
businesses do it too?" Female directors must make up at least 40 percent of all new shareholder- 
owned companies' boards of directors from January 2006. Existing stock companies will have two 


years to conform to the new quotas. Minister Karita Bekkemellem says "This is all about sharing 
power and influence and it is intervention in private ownership, but it was overdue." 

Now, what happens if this powerful state bureaucracy gets taken over by people who, say, want to 
push Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration? In this case, this ingrained passivity becomes 
extremely dangerous. The welfare state weakens the ability of citizens to protect themselves and 
think for themselves. It no longer provides "security," in fact it provides insecurity, since we are 
financing our own, Islamic colonization. It is used to pacify the general populace by the Eurabian 
elites. Not only will the welfare state collapse, it probably must collapse. 

Journalist and writer Kurt Lundgren notes on his blog that Sweden during the past five years has 
witnessed the largest mass-emigration in the country's history since the peak of the immigration to 
the USA more than a century ago. The people leaving are primarily highly educated, native middle 
class Swedes. Common reasons cited for leaving are rampant crime and a sense of hopelessness and 
resignation over poor political leadership. At the same time, Sweden receives a large amount of 
immigrants from Third World and Islamic nations every year. Is this population replacement 
profitable for Sweden as a nation? 

Lundgren states that it feels like "being spectator to a huge social experiment: The dismantling of an 
entire nation, one of the oldest in Europe, with all its traditions, its entire history for good or bad, 
the national awareness and the nation's soul; all of this shall be eroded in a planned process. 
Nobody knows what will come instead of this, but there could be something monstrous emerging 
from this, something really terrifying...." 

Lundgren read a book about the collapse of the Soviet Union , and believes the system collapsed 
when the vision of reality presented by the authorities and the media became too different from the 
realities people experienced in their everyday lives. He fears the same thing is now about to happen 
in Sweden. What makes the situation particularly serious is the constant influx of unemployed and 
partly unemployable immigrants 

"I don't think even a tax rate of 64 percent will do to sustain the illusion of a welfare state. Maybe it 
will take 70 percent or more in the future. Perhaps before the year 2010 we will reach a point where 
the fantasy image we are presented no longer can be reconciled with what the people are 
experiencing. At that point, everything will fall apart, just like in the Soviet Union, but there will be 
a few more years of disintegration and chaos until we reach this point." 

The Buddha tells a story about a man and a raft which is used as a simile for understanding his 
teachings. The raft should be used to cross over to the other shore, but not for anything more: 

"Upon reaching the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! Why don't 
I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, 
monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?" 

"No, lord." replied the monks. 

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the 
case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! Why 
don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, 
he would be doing what should be done with the raft." 

That's what Western Europeans should do with the welfare state. 


The welfare state wasn't all bad, and it did indeed work better in Scandinavia than anywhere else. 
However, the welfare state belongs to a specific historical epoch that we are now rapidly leaving 
behind, and its flaws are starting to catch up with it. The welfare state creates a false sense of 
security in a dog-eat-dog world. It can even be quite dangerous to cling on to a raft when you are 
heading for a waterfall. Instead of clinging on to the raft, which may in fact drag you down with it, 
the sensible thing to do is to make it to the shore and continue without it. 

The welfare state is dead, long live the welfare state. 


How the feminists' "war against boys" paved the way for islam 

Mon, 2006-09-04 14:39 

Some commentators like to point out that many of the most passionate and bravest defenders of the 
West are women, citing Italian writer Oriana Fallaci and others as examples . But women like Ms. 
Fallaci, brave as they might be, are not representative of all Western women. If you look closely, 
you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism 
and massive immigration than are Western men. 

I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of 
my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, 
anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding 
them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would 
have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this 
makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were. 

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the 
mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I 
suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism 
that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn't take action 
because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else 
that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, 
and perhaps Western civilization as whole. 

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of 
Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds 
or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two 
thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male 
parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the 
Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not 
George Bush. 

The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more 
"xenophobic and selfish" than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to 
show solidarity with outsiders. That's one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had 
the responsibility for protecting the "tribe" and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog 
world. Women are more naive, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term 
consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now. 

Didn't feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver's 
seat, because they wouldn't sacrifice their own children? Well, isn't that exactly what they are doing 
now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same 
Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow? 

Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological 
reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced 
"Third- Worldism" and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis. 

American writer Phyllis Chesler has sharply criticized her sisters in books such as The Death of 
Feminism. She feels that too many feminists have abandoned their commitment to freedom and 
"become cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers," thus failing to confront Islamic 
terrorism. She paints a portrait of current U.S. University campuses as steeped in "a new and 
diabolical McCarthyism" spearheaded by leftist rhetoric. 


Chesler has a point. Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world 
comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim 
immigrants are "fellow victims" of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse 
than Western men. Many Western universities have courses filled with hate against men that would 
be unthinkable the other way around. That's why Scandinavian feminists don't call for 
Scandinavian men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression from 
Muslim men. Most Norwegian feminists are also passionate anti-racists who will oppose any steps 
to limit Muslim immigration as "racism and xenophobia." 

Totalitarian feminists in Norway are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to 
recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007, a Soviet-style regulation of the economy 
in the name of gender equality. I have read comments from Socialist politicians and leftist 
commentators in certain newspapers, such as the pro-Multicultural and feminist — critics would say 
Female Supremacist — newspaper Dagbladet, arguing that we should have quotas for Muslim 
immigrants, too. 

What started out as radical feminism has thus gradually become egalitarianism, the fight against 
"discrimination" of any kind, the idea that all groups of people should have an equal share of 
everything and that it is the state's responsibility to ensure that this takes place. A prime example of 
this is Norway's Ombud for Gender Equality, which in 2006 became The Equality and Anti- 
discrimination Ombud . The Ombud's duties are "to promote equality and combat discrimination on 
the basis of gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and age." 

Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political 
power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness 
is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re -writing of the history books to address 
an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual 
hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as "bigots." They have even succeeded 
in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard 

When Muslims, who above all else like to present themselves as victims, enter Western nations, 
they find that much of their work has already been done for them. They can use a pre-established 
tradition of claiming to be victims, demanding state intervention and maybe quotas to address this, 
as well as a complete re-writing of history and public campaigns against bigotry and hate speech. 
Western feminists have thus paved the way for the forces that will dismantle Western feminism, and 
end up in bed, sometimes quite literally, with the people who want to enslave them. 

Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax 
Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited 
that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet responded 
by saying that Schyman was right : All men are like the Taliban. 

The irony is that in an Islamic state similar to the one the Taliban established in Afghanistan, certain 
groups of people, in this case non-Muslims, pay a special punishment tax simply because of who 
they are, not because of what they earn. Radical feminists such as Ms. Schyman are thus closer to 
the Taliban than Western men, although I'm pretty sure that irony would be completely missed on 

Schyman's battle cry is "Death to the nuclear family!" I have heard the same slogan repeated by 
young Norwegian feminists in recent years. Schyman seethed that today's family unit is "built on a 
foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinate to men. The hierarchy of 
gender, for which violence against women is the ultimate expression, has been cemented." 
"Conservatives want to strengthen the family. I find this of grave concern." 

In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the 
stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called " I Will 


Never Give Birth to a White Man ," for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained 
why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make 
things clear, she added, "no white men, please. . . I just puke on them, thank you very much." 

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn't necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. 
The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable. 

If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as 
possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well 
congratulations to Western European women. You've succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your 
own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn't enter a 
feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell. 

It is correct, as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper- 
masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as 
soon as it is confronted by more traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of "having it all," Western 
women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive 
gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina 
Monologues at them? 

Perhaps women can succeed in turning their men into doormats, but it will be on the cost of doing 
so to their nation and to their civilization as well. According to Italian American feminist Camille 
Paglia, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." That 
may be an exaggeration, but male energy is definitely a driving force in any dynamic culture. 

Muslim anti-female violence in the West is a symptom of the breakdown of the feminist Utopia. 
Freedoms need to be enforced by violence or the credible threat of violence, or they are 
meaningless. Even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility 
for protection will probably always belong to men. Women will thus only have as much freedom as 
their men are willing and capable of guaranteeing them. It is a major flaw in many feminist theories 
that they fail to acknowledge this. 

The difference between women's rights and women's illusions is defined by a Smith and Wesson, 
not by a Betty Friedan or a Virginia Wolf. 

Writer Lars Hedegaard in Denmark does not buy into the theory that women approve of Muslim 
immigration out of irrational naivety or ideological conviction. He thinks they simply want it, as he 
writes in a column entitled "The dream of submission." He does notice, as I do, that women are 
more likely than men to support parties that are open for more Muslim immigration. 

Why is this, considering that there is hardly a single Muslim majority area in the world where 
women enjoy the same rights as men? And Hedegaard asks a provocative question: Are women 
more stupid and less enlightened than men, since they in such great numbers are paving the way for 
their own submission? He comes up with an equally provocative answer: "When women are paving 
the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia." They don't want freedom 
because they feel attracted to subservience and subjugation. 

The English author Fay Weldon has noted that "For women, there is something sexually very 
alluring about submission." And as Hedegaard dryly notes, if submission is what many women 
seek, the feminized Danish men are boring compared to desert sheikhs who won't allow you to go 
outside without permission. Muslims like to point out that there are more women than men in the 
West who convert to Islam, and this is in fact partly true. Islam means "submission." Is there 
something about submission that is more appealing to some women than it is to most men? Do 
women yield more easily to power? 

In a newspaper article about Swedish women converting to Islam , the attraction of the Islamic 
family life seems to be a common feature among women converts. Several of them state that in 
Islam, the man is more rational and logical, while the woman is more emotional and caring. This 


means that the woman should be the one to take care of the children and do the housekeeping, while 
the man should be the one to work and provide for the family. Many of the women feel that their 
lives lack a sense of purpose, but Christianity does not seem like a relevant alternative to them. 

The fixation with looks in our modern society and the tougher living conditions for women, who are 
supposed to both have a career and do the housekeeping, play a part, too. Which is curious, 
considering the fact that it was women themselves, encouraged by modern talk show hostesses such 
as Oprah Winfrey, who talked about "having it all"; it wasn't the men. Men know that nobody can 
"have it all," you have to give up something to get something. Maybe women have discovered that 
working life wasn't all that it was cracked up to be? Men do, after all, universally die years before 
women all over the world. 

The plot of novelist Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that the modern history of Christianity was a 
big, patriarchal plot to deprive women of the rights they supposedly enjoyed before this, during the 
age of "the sacred feminine" and the fertility goddesses who were always barefoot and pregnant. 
But if that's the case, why is it that women make up the majority of Europe's churchgoers? Why do 
women, out of their own free will, seek out these oppressive, patriarchal religions? Maybe French 
philosopher Ernest Renan was onto something when he called women "the devout sex." Do women 
need religion more than men? 

Are some feminists simply testing out men's limits in the hope of finding some new balance 
between the sexes, or are they testing men to find our which men are strong enough to stand up to 
their demands, and thus which men can stand up to other men on their behalf? I heard one woman 
who was an ardent feminist in the 1970s later lament how many families they broke up and 
destroyed. She was surprised at the reaction, or lack of reaction, from men: "We were horrible. Why 
didn't you stop us?" 

In psychiatry, female patients are seen more frequently with self-inflicted wounds or self- 
destructive behaviour than men, who tend to direct their aggression outwards. It is also a well- 
known fact that many women blame themselves for abusive husbands, and make excuses for their 
abusers' behavior. Has the West adopted some of the negative traits of the female psyche? The 
newly feminized West gets attacked and assaulted by the Arab and Islamic world, and continues to 
blame itself, while at the same time be fascinated by its abusers. It is thus behaving in the same way 
as a self-loathing woman towards an abusive man. 

Virginia Woolf in her book A Room of One s Own praises the genius of William Shakespeare : "If 
ever a human being got his work expressed completely, it was Shakespeare. If ever a mind was 
incandescent, unimpeded, I thought, turning again to the bookcase, it was Shakespeare's mind." 
"Let me imagine, since facts are so hard to come by, what would have happened had Shakespeare 
had a wonderfully gifted sister, called Judith, let us say." "His extraordinarily gifted sister, let us 
suppose, remained at home. She was as adventurous, as imaginative, as agog to see the world as he 
was. But she was not sent to school. She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of 
reading Horace and Virgil." She "killed herself one winter's night and lies buried at some cross- 
roads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and Castle." 

Feminists claim that the reason why women haven't been as numerous in politics and science as 
men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being 
male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for 
women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on 
women than on men. A modern society may lessen these restraints, but it will never remove them 
completely. For these practical reasons, it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men 
in politics or in the highest level in business. 

Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of The War Against Boys, points out that "after almost 40 years 
of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than 
women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men 


continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And 
— fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny — men have hardly budged from 
their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like 
manly men." 

She also notes that "One of the least visited memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue 
commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers 
survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men 
followed the principle 'women and children first.' "The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure 
with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by 'the women of America' in 1931 to show their 
gratitude. The inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. [...] 
They gave their lives that women and children might be saved." 

Simone de Beauvoir famously said, "One is not born, but becomes a woman." She meant that they 
should reject all the inducements of nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir 
condemned marriage and family as a "tragedy" for women, and compared childbearing and 
nurturing to slavery. 

Strangely enough, after decades of feminism, many Western women are now lamenting the fact that 
Western men hesitate to get married. Here is columnist Molly Watson : 

We 're also pretty clued up about why our generation is delaying having children — and it has 
nothing to do with being failed by employers or health planners. Nor, despite endless newspaper 
features on the subject, does it have much to do with business women putting careers before babies. 
In my experience, the root cause of the epidemic lies with a collective failure of nerve among men 
our age. [...] I don't know a woman of my age whose version of living happily ever after 
fundamentally hinges on becoming editor, or senior partner, or surgeon, or leading counsel. But 
faced with a generation of emotionally immature men who seem to view marriage as the last thing 
they '11 do before they die, we have little option but to wait. 

What happened to the slogan "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"? I'd just like to 
remind Ms. Watson that it was in fact the women who started this whole "single is best" culture that 
now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially 
mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn't really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get 
involved at all. As one man put it: "I don't think I'll get married again. I'll just find a woman I don't 
like and give her a house." At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot 
easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and 
easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men "won't commit?" Maybe too many women 
didn't think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon? 

The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western 
world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for 
raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings 
are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a 
"conspiracy to oppress women", it's the reason why we're here. And it's not a religious thing, either. 
According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce. 

A study from the United States identified the main barriers to men tying the knot. Heading the list 
was their ability to get sex without marriage more easily than in the past. The second was that they 
can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying. The report lends weight 
to remarks by Ross Cameron, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Family and 
Community Services, who chided Australian men, blaming Australia's looming fertility crisis on 
men's commitment phobia. "The principal reason young women say they don't get around to 
having children is they can't find a bloke they like who is willing to commit," he said. "This 
commitment aversion in the Australian male is a real problem." 

Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about a significant divergence in fertility 


between Canada and the U.S.: "The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of 
first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total 
fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large 
enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility." "Changing values in the U.S. and Canada 
may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families 
and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also 
a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law 
unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less 

In Europe, Newsweek writes about how packs of wolves are now making a comeback in regions of 
Central Europe: "A hundred years ago, a burgeoning, land-hungry population killed off the last of 
Germany's wolves." "Our postcard view of Europe, after all, is of a continent where every scrap of 
land has long been farmed, fenced off and settled. But the continent of the future may look rather 
different. "Big parts of Europe will renaturalize," says Reiner Klingholz, head of the Berlin Institute 
for Population Development. Bears are back in Austria. In Swiss alpine valleys, farms have been 
receding and forests are growing back in. In parts of France and Germany, wildcats and ospreys 
have re-established their range." 

"In Italy, more than 60 percent of the country's 2.6 million farmers are at least 65 years old. Once 
they die out, many of their farms will join the 6 million hectares (one third of Italian farmland) that 
has already been abandoned." "With the EU alone needing about 1.6 million immigrants a year 
above its current level to keep the working-age population stable between now and 2050, a much 
more likely source of migrants would be Europe's Muslim neighbors, whose young populations are 
set to almost double in that same time." 

It is numbers like these that have induced Phillip Longman to foresee " the Return of Patriarchy " 
and proclaim that "conservatives will inherit the Earth:" 

"Among states that voted for President George W Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher 
than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry." "It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to 
identify themselves as "world citizens" are also those least likely to have children." "The great 
difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives 
augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies." "Tomorrow's children, 
therefore, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally 
conservative segment of society." 

"In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare 
state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival 
advantage." "People will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they 
will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values." 

This last point is worth dwelling with. The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is 
frequently labelled as "the nanny state," but perhaps it could also be named "the husband state." 
Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and 
financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been 
"outsourced" to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate 
support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute 
husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands. 

It should be mentioned that if this welfare state should for some reason cease to function , for 
instance due to economic and security pressures caused by Muslim immigration, Western women 
will suddenly discover that they are not quite as independent from men as they like to think. In this 
case, it is conceivable that we will se a return to the modern traditional "provide and protect" 
masculinity, as people, and women in particular, will need the support of the nuclear and extended 
family to manage. 


Another issue is that although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as 
havens of gender equality, I have heard visitors to these countries comment that the sexes are 
probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world. And I readily believe that. Radical 
feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what's more, it has no in any way 
eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not 
find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of 
globalization is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East 
Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of 
women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend 
is unmistakable and significant. Scandinavians celebrate "gender equality," and travel to the other 
side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying. 

To sum it up, it must be said that radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the 
current weakness of Western civilization, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with 
a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public 
censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the 
Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with 
aggression from Muslims. 

Although feminism may have strayed away into extremism, that does not mean that all of its ideas 
are wrong. The women's movement will make lasting changes. Women have occupied positions 
considered unthinkable only a few decades ago. Some things are irreversible. 

Women pretty much run men's private lives. Marriage used to be a trade: Female nurturing and 
support for male financial and social security. In a modern world, women may not need men's 
financial support quite as much as they did before, while men need women's emotional support just 
as much as we have always done. The balance of power has changed in favor of women, although 
this situation may not last forever. This does not have to be bad. Women still want a partner. But it 
requires men to be more focused on doing their best. 

A study by scientists at the University of Copenhagen concludes that divorce is closely linked to 
poor health, especially among men . The research indicates that the death rate for single or divorced 
males aged 40-50 is twice as high as for other groups. The research has taken into account whether 
there are other factors that could lead to an early death — such as a mental illness and having grown 
up under poor social conditions. "Considering the high amount of children growing up in broken 
homes we do believe that the study is very relevant. "It proves that divorce can have a serious 
consequence," and that we may need a prevention strategy. John Aasted Halse, psychologist and 
author of numerous books about divorce, agrees. 

The apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on 
the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a "weaker/stronger sex". I will 
postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. 
This will have both positive and negative results. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, 
as well as in crime and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as 
much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms "The Restless Sex" for 
men and "The Self-Contained Sex" for women are more appropriate and explain the differences 

Daniel Pipes keeps saying that the answer to radical Islam is moderate Islam. There may not be any 
such thing as a moderate Islam, but there just might be a moderate feminism, and a mature 
masculinity to match it. In the book Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield offers what he calls a modest 
defense of manliness. As he says, "Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad." 
Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic who sacrificed their lives for 
"women and children first," but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Many men will find it 
offensive to hear that Islamic violence and honor killings have anything to do with masculinity, but 


it does. Islam is a compressed version of all the darkest aspects of masculinity. We should reject it. 
Men, too, lose their freedom to think and say what they want in Islam, not just women. 

However, even a moderate version of feminism could prove lethal to Islam. Islam survives on the 
extreme subjugation of women. Deprived of this, it will suffocate and die. It is true that the West 
still hasn't found the formula for the perfect balance between men and women in the 21st century, 
but at least we are working on the issue. Islam is stuck in the 7th century. Some men lament the loss 
of a sense of masculinity in a modern world. Perhaps a meaningful one could be to make sure that 
our sisters and daughters grow up in a world where they have the right to education and a free life, 
and protect them against Islamic barbarism. It's going to be needed. 


Why we cannot rely on moderate muslims 

Friday, September 08, 2006 

According to Dr. Daniel Pipes , Omar Ahmad, the long-serving chairman of CAIR, the Council on 
American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam 
isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the 
highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." 

In 2005, three Dallas-area brothers were convicted of supporting terrorism by funnelling money to a 
high-ranking official in the militant Palestinian group Hamas. Ghassan and Bayan Elashi and their 
company were found guilty of all 2 1 federal counts they faced: conspiracy, money laundering and 
dealing in property of a terrorist. Ghassan Elashi was the founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR. 

One would normally think that an organization that has convicted terrorist supporters among its 
members and whose leading members have stated a desire to replace the US Constitution with 
sharia would be shunned by Western media and political representatives. Unfortunately, that's not 
the case. 

In August 2006, a poll revealed that most Americans favor profiling of people who look "Middle 
Eastern" for security screening at locations such as airports and train stations. News wire Reuters 
stated that the "civil rights and advocacy organization" CAIR protested against this. Ibrahim 
Hooper, communications director for the CAIR, wanted Americans to solve the problem of Islamic 
terrorism by cooperating with, well, people such as CAIR: "It's one of those things that makes 
people think they are doing something to protect themselves when they're not. They're in fact 
producing more insecurity by alienating the very people whose help is necessary in the war on 
terrorism," he said. 

The Kentucky office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has been conducting "sensitivity 
training" for FBI agents in Lexington, examining "common stereotypes of Islam and Muslims," and 
ways in which to improve interactions with the Muslim community. 

Meanwhile, a survey revealed that 81% of Detroit Muslims wanted sharia in Muslim countries. 
Yehudit Barsky, an expert on terrorism at the American Jewish Committee, warned that mainstream 
US Muslim organizations are heavily influenced by Saudi-funded extremists. These "extremist 
organizations continue to claim the mantle of leadership" over American Islam. Over 80 percent of 
the mosques in the United States "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," Barsky 

The northern Virginia-based Muslim Students' Association (MSA) might easily be taken for a_ 
benign student religious group. At a meeting in Queensborough Community College in New York 
in March 2003, a guest speaker named Faheed declared, "We reject the U.N., reject America, reject 
all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only 
relationship you should have with America is to topple it ... Eventually there will be a Muslim in the 
White House dictating the laws of Shariah." 

So, what happened to the famous "moderate Muslims" in all this? That's a question writer Robert 
Spencer asks, too. Imam Siraj Wahaj is in great demand as a speaker. In 1991, he even became the 
first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. 


However, he has also warned that the United States will fall unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda." 
He has lamented that "if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United 
States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." In the early 1990s he sponsored 
talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was 
later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahaj was 
designated a "potential unindicted co-conspirator." 

Mr. Spencer notes that "The fact that someone who would like to see the [US] Constitution replaced 
has led a prayer for those sworn to uphold it is just a symptom a larger, ongoing problem: the 
government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims — and as their desperation has increased, 
their standards have lowered." The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and 
kitman: "These are Islamic doctrines of religious deception. They originated in Shi'ite Islamic 
defenses against Sunni Islam, but have their roots in the Qur'an (3:28 and 16:106). Many radical 
Muslims today work hard to deceive unbelievers, in line with Muhammad's statement, "War is 

Professor Walid Phares gives an explanation of such religious deception, part and parcel of Jihad 
while Muslims are in a weaker position: "Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically 
'dodge the threat'. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war 
against the enemy." "According to Al-Taqiya, Muslims were granted the Shar'iya (legitimacy) to 
infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy's cities and forums and plant the seeds of 
discord and sedition. 

"These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not 
considered as lying or denouncing the tenets of Islam. They were "legitimate" mujahedeen [holy 
warriors], whose mission was to undermine the enemy's resistance and level of mobilization. One 
of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy's camp. In many instances, they 
convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them." 

This deception "has a civilizational, global dimension versus the narrow state interest of the regular 
Western subversive methods." "The uniqueness of today's Taqiya is its success within advanced and 
sophisticated societies. Taqiya is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge 
among Western elites, both Jewish and Christian." 

Youssef Mohamed E .„ a 22-year-old Lebanese man, is one of two persons suspected of trying to 
carry out bomb attacks on regional trains from Cologne, Germany, in July 2006. His fellow students 
were stunned. They couldn't imagine how one of their fellow students could be a terrorist, a train 
bomber. He was a "completely normal guy" said one of them. "He was friendly, polite, 
inconspicuous," and he never spoke ill of anyone. The publication of caricatures depicting the 
Prophet Mohammed was interpreted by Youssef as an insult to Islam by the Western world, and 
triggered the attempted terror attack. 

Muhammad Atta was named by the FBI as the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to 
crash into the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was also a student in 
Germany, where he was described as quiet, polite and inconspicuous. This strategy of using 
religious deception, smiling to the infidels while plotting to kill them, has become a common 
feature of many would-be Jihadists in the West. 

According to Robert Spencer , secular clothing is actually in accord with instructions in a captured 
Al-Qaeda manual to appear to be a secular, assimilated Muslim with no interest in religion. In 


renting an apartment, "It is preferable to rent these apartments using false names, appropriate cover, 
and non-Moslem appearance." And in general: "Have a general appearance that does not indicate 
Islamic orientation (beard, toothpick, book, [long] shirt, small Koran). ...Be careful not to mention 
the brothers' common expressions or show their behaviors (special praying appearance, 'may Allah 
reward you', 'peace be on you' while arriving and departing, etc.)." 

Ambassadors to the Czech Republic from Arab nations and members of the Czech Muslim 
community were outraged by a documentary aired on ACETV that used hidden camera footage of 
conversations in a Prague mosque. The footage showed a reporter pretending to be someone 
interested in converting to Islam. One of members of the mosque said Islamic law should be 
implemented in the Czech Republic, including the death penalty for adultery. "The result was 
alarming, and if not for the hidden camera, I would have never had any of this footage," the 
journalist said. 

An Arabic-speaking journalist had on several occasions visited a large mosque in Stockholm, and 
noticed that what the imam said in his speech in Arabic didn't match the Swedish translation. 
"America rapes Islam," imam Hassan Mousa roared in Arabic. Minutes later the Swedish 
translation was ready. Not a word on how America was raping Islam. Imam Mousa said that many 
Muslims call him an "American friendly" preacher. The mistranslation was because "Arabic is a 
much richer language than Swedish. It's impossible to translate everything." 

Examples such as these leave non-Muslims with a very powerful dilemma: How can we ever trust 
assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so 
widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The 
answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't. 

Does this mean that ALL Muslims are lying about their true agenda, all of the time? No, of course 
not. Some are quite frank about their intentions. 

Norway's most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar , has said in public that there's a war going on 
between the West and Islam, and that Islam will win. "We're the ones who will change you," Krekar 
told. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like 

"Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1 .4 children. Every Muslim woman in 
the same countries is producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will 
be Muslim." He claimed that "our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours." He 
loosely defined "Western thinking" as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non- 
Islamic nations. Its "materialism, egoism and wildness" has altered Christianity, Krekar claimed. 

In The Force of Reason , Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she 
interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was 
about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war "against Europe and 
America" and to ensure that henceforth "there would be no peace for the West." The Arabs, he 
informed her, would "advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after 
decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand 
throughout the whole planet." 

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he "also meant 
the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its 


citizens — In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism." 
The US State Department believes that Washington can contain the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk 
through dialogue and should avoid any further clash with them, because this "would only fan hatred 
and incite more attacks against US interests." The State Department has asked the US Embassy in 
Cairo to reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders as a preliminary step for an organized 

At the same time, the new Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman 'Akef said in 2004 to 
Arab media that America is 'Satan' and " will soon collapse ." "I have complete faith that Islam will 
invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission." Western authorities are thus 
trying to "reach out" to an organization that wants to conquer and subdue them. 

Besides, exactly what does "dialogue" mean, anyway? Poul E. Andersen , former dean of the church 
of Odense, Denmark, warns against false hopes of dialogue with Muslims. During a debate at the 
University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: "Islam has waged war 
where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed 
as part of a missionary objective." 

When Mr. Andersen raised the issue of dialogue with the Muslim World League in Denmark, the 
answer was: "To a Muslim, it is artificial to discuss Islam. In fact, you view any discussion as an 
expression of Western thinking." Andersen's conclusion was that for Islamists, any debate about 
religious issues is impossible as a matter of principle. If Muslims engage in a dialogue or debate on 
religious subjects, this is for one purpose only: To create more room for Islam. 

In Britain's The Spectator, Patrick Sookhdeo writes about the myth of moderate Islam: 

"The peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed's time in Mecca, 
while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to 
Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, 
Mohammed's own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and 
himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars 
developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with 
Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da'wa 

"So the mantra 'Islam is peace' is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that 
Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit 
with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war 
was not dominant. For today's radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed 
classical Islam — it would be truer to say 'Islam is war.'" 

What is a moderate Muslim? In 2003, the Associated Press touted as a "moderate" a cleric who told 
Saudi radio that terrorist attacks in his capital violated "the sanctity of Ramadan." Leading 
government cleric Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi 
Arabia's highest religious body. He was also the author of the religious books used to teach 5 
million Saudi students, both within the country and in Saudi schools abroad — including those in 
Washington, D.C. "Slavery is a part of Islam," he said in one tape, adding: "Slavery is part of jihad, 
and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." A moderate Muslim by Saudi standards is thus a 
person who wants to reinstate slavery in the 21st century. 

During his speech at the opening of the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct 16, 


2003, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia stated that: "We are all Muslims. We are all 
oppressed. We are all being humiliated." "1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million 
Jews. There must be a way." "Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and 
die for them." 

"They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy 
so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. 
With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny 
community, have become a world power." Mahathir talked about how Muslims could win a "final 
victory," and recalled the glory days when "Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in 
order to access their own scholastic heritage." 

Farish Noor , a Malaysian scholar who specializes in politics and Islam, says that the idea of a 
secular state is dead in Malaysia. "An Islamic society is already on the cards. The question is what 
kind of Islamic society this will be." There is a creeping Islamization of the country, and Islamic 
police officers routinely arrest unmarried couples for "close proximity." Yet despite all of this, 
Malaysia is considered one of the most moderate Muslim majority countries in the world. What 
does this tell us? 

While NATO soldiers are risking their lives to establish a "democratic and moderate" regime in 
Afghanistan, a former regional governor who oversaw the destruction of two massive 1,500-year- 
old Buddha statues during the Taliban's reign was elected to the Afghan parliament. Mawlawi 
Mohammed Islam Mohammadi was the Taliban's governor of Bamiyan province when the fifth- 
century Buddha statues were blown up with dynamite and artillery in March 2001. 

In the same, Western-supported, moderate Afghanistan, the police arrested six people for stoning to 
death an Afghan women accused of adultery . The arrests were made after the interior ministry sent a 
delegation to a remote village in north-eastern Badakhshan province following reports that the 
woman was stoned to death. Were they arrested because stoning was barbaric? No. They were 
arrested because they were carrying out an unauthorized stoning: The mullah who authorized the 
killing was not a judge. 

Ashram Choudhary, Muslim MP in New Zealand , will not condemn the traditional Koran 
punishment of stoning to death some homosexuals and people who have extra-marital affairs. But 
the Labour MP - who has struggled with his "role" as the sole parliamentary representative of the 
local Muslim community — assures that he is not advocating the practice in the West. The question 
is not just of academic interest. A 23-year-old Tunisian woman was stoned to death near Marseilles, 
France , in 2004. 

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou , a member of Copenhagen's City Council, has stated: "It's 
impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also 
encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off 
sharia is a form of warfare against them." 

Read that statement again, and read it carefully. Muslims in the West consider it "a form of warfare 
against them" if they have to live by our secular laws, not their religious laws. Will they then also 
react in violent ways to this "warfare" if they don't get their will? Moreover, since sharia laws 
ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, doesn't "freedom of religion" for Muslims 
essentially entail the freedom to make non-Muslims second-rate citizens in their own countries? 
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello said Australian Muslim leaders need to stand up and publicly 


denounce terrorism in all its forms. Mr. Costello has also backed calls by Prime Minister John 
Howard for Islamic migrants to adopt Australian values. Mr. Howard caused outrage in Australia's 
Islamic community when he said Muslims needed to speak English and show respect to women. 

Hammasa Kohistani , the first Muslim to be crowned Miss England, warned that "stereotyping" 
members of her community was leading some towards extremism. "Even moderate Muslims are 
turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are 
stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more." 

So, if radical Muslims stage mass-murder attacks against non-Muslims, the non-Muslims must not 
show any anger because of this, otherwise the moderate Muslims may get insulted and become 
terrorists, too. Gee, isn't it comforting to know that there is such a sharp dividing line between 
moderates and radicals, and that moderate Muslims have such an aptitude for self-criticism? 

Unfortunately, Jihad-supporters are allowed to stifle Western defense capabilities by feeding them 
Politically Correct propaganda. U.K. police officers were given "diversity training" at an Islamic 
school southeast of London, the private Jameah Islameah school in East Sussex, that later became 
the center of a terrorism investigation. The county's police officers visited the school as many as 15 
times for training to improve their awareness of Muslim culture and for advanced training so they 
could themselves become diversity trainers. 

In August 2006, following the unveiling of a plot to blow up several airliners between Britain and 
the USA, Muslim leaders summoned to talks with the Government on tackling extremism made a 
series of demands, which included the introduction of sharia law for family matters. Dr Syed Aziz 
Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said: 'We 
told her [the minister] if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince 
young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.' 

As Charles Johnson of blog Little Green Footballs dryly commented, this is an interesting 
viewpoint: Only by receiving special treatment and instituting a medieval religious legal code can 
Muslims be treated "equally." 

After the plot against the airliners was uncovered, a large number of UK Muslim groups sent a letter 
with veiled threats to PM Tony Blair, stating that "It is our view that current British government 
policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad," and that the British 
should "change our foreign policy," in addition to allowing Muslims more sharia. The same thing 
happened after the bombs in London in 2005. 

If we watch closely, we will notice that Muslims are highly organized and have prepared long lists 
of demands. Every act of terrorism, or Jihad as it really is, is seen as an opportunity to push even 
greater demands. Radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies, not adversaries. The radicals 
bomb, and the moderates issue veiled threats that "unless we get our will, more such attacks will 
ensue." It's a good cop, bad cop game. 

It is true that Jihad is not exclusively about violence, but it is very much about the constant threat of 
violence. Just like you don't need to beat a donkey all the time to make it go where you want it to, 
Muslims don't have to hit non-Muslims continuously. They bomb or kill every now and then, to 
make sure that the infidels are always properly submissive and know who's boss. 

Sadly, they frequently tend to get their will, and the donkey, or as in this case, the British, do what 


the Muslims want. A hospital in northwest England has introduced a new surgical gown modelled 
on the burka , allowing female Muslim patients to cover themselves completely. The blue "Inter- 
Faith Gown" is the first of its type in Britain and has being tried out at the Royal Preston Hospital. 

Professor Moshe Sharon teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He gives this 
description of how a temporary truce, a hudna, is used as an Islamic strategy against infidels: 

"Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and 
Moslem." "With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - 
a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can 
only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires." 

"A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, [Palestinian leader] Arafat went to 
Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you 
think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" Arafat continued, 
"That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did." "What Arafat was saying was, 
"Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of 
Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city 
of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext." 

I have earlier quoted how even Norwegian diplomat and United Nation's envoy Terje Rod-Larsen , a 
key player during the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s, later admitted that "Arafat lied all the time." 

The Arabs never wanted a peace with Israel. They wanted to buy time until they were strong enough 
to win. The peace overtures by the Israelis were interpreted as a sign of weakness. The so-called 
Treaty of Hudaybiyya, signed while Muhammad and his supporters were not yet strong enough to 
conquer Mecca, has become a standard for Islamic relations with non-Muslims ever since. 

Sharon states that "Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you 
are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you 
are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement]." "What makes Islam 
accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice." 

Furthermore, the Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war. There's also war by 
infiltration, as we can see in Western countries now. Is there a possibility to end this dance of war? 
According to Moshe Sharon, the answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future. What we can do is 
reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet." 

As Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald says of moderate Muslims: "They are still 
people who call themselves Muslims, and we, the Infidels, have no idea what this will cause them, 
or could cause them, to do in the future. We likewise have no idea what their children, or their 
grandchildren will see as their responsibility as Muslims. The "moderate" Muslim today may be 
transformed into an "immoderate" Muslim, or his descendants could be if he does not make a 
complete break and become an apostate. All over the West now we see the phenomenon of Muslim 
children who are more devout and observant than their parents." 

This is, unfortunately, very true. In November 2005, an intelligence study obtained by Canada's 
National Post said that a "high percentage" of the Canadian Muslims involved in extremist activities 
were home-grown and born in Canada, a marked shift from the past when they were mostly 
refugees and immigrants: "There does not appear to be a single process that leads to extremism; the 
transformation is highly individual. Once this change has taken place, such individuals move on to a 


series of activities, ranging from propaganda and recruiting, to terrorist training and participation in 
extremist operations." 

Hugh Fitzgerald wonders how many of our Muslim immigrants will be truly moderate. How many 
of them "will turn out to be like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? One out of 20? One out of 100? One out of 1,000? 
One out of 100,000? How many of the men will turn out to be like Magdi Allam in Italy, or like 
Bassam Tibi in Germany? How many Ibn Warraqs and Ali Sinas, or converts to Christianity such as 
Walid Shoebat, are there likely to be in any population of, say, 1000 Muslim immigrants? Should 
the Western world admit a million immigrants, or permit them to remain, because a few of them see 
the light?" "Let Muslims remain within Dar al-Islam. Let the Infidels do everything they can to first 
learn themselves, and then to show Muslims that they understand (so that Muslims will then have to 
begin to recognize) that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic 
societies, both within Dar al-Islam and in Dar al-Harb, are directly related to, and arise out of, Islam 

Youssef Ibrahim of the New York Sun is tired of the silence from the Muslim majority: "Hardly any 
Muslim groups, moderate or otherwise, voiced public disapproval of [Dutch Islamic critic Theo] 
van Gogh's murder except in the most formulaic way." "In Islam, "silence is a sign of acceptance," 
as the Arabic Koranic saying goes." "The question that hangs in the air so spectacularly now — 
particularly as England has been confronted once again by British Muslims plotting to kill hundreds 
— is this: What exactly are the Europeans waiting for before they round up all those Muslim 
warriors and their families and send them back to where they came from?" 

A just question, which increasing numbers of Europeans are asking, too. A big part of the answer 
lies in the elaborate Eurabian, pro-Islamic networks that have been built up by stealth over decades, 
and hardly ever debated by European media. Besides, it's embarrassing for Western political 
leaders, who have championed Multiculturalism for a long time, to admit that they have made a 
terrible mistake that is now threatening the very survival of their countries. 

It is possible that those Western countries where the infidels are strong enough will copy the Benes 
Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 
million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the 
state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch 
has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of the Muslim population 
in the West now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans. 

The most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves as a civilization, but also to limit the 
loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims in what increasingly looks like a world war, is 
for Westerners and indeed non-Muslims in general to implement a policy of containment of the 
Islamic world, as suggested by Mr. Fitzgerald. This includes completely stopping Muslim 
immigration, but also by making our countries Islam-unfriendly, thus presenting the Muslims 
already here between the options of adapting to our societies or leaving if they desire sharia law. 
Even whispering about Jihad should be grounds for expulsion and revoking citizenship. 

I have compared Islam to the movie "The Matrix," where people are turned into slaves by living in 
a make-believe reality designed to keep them in chains. In the movie, everybody who hasn't been 
completely unplugged from this artificial reality is potentially an agent for the system. I have 
gradually come to the conclusion that this is the sanest way to view Muslims, too. 


Some would argue that it is a crime and a betrayal of our own values to argue for excluding 
Muslims from our countries or even expelling some of the ones who are already here. I disagree. 
The relatively small number of Muslims we have in the West now has already caused enormous 
damage to our economy, to our culture and not the least to our freedoms. The real crime, and the 
real betrayal, would be to sacrifice centuries of advances in human freedom as well as the future of 
our children and grandchildren to appease Muslims who contribute virtually nothing to our societies 
and are hostile to their very foundations. 

As I have demonstrated above, it is perfectly accepted, and widely practiced, by Jihadist Muslims to 
lie to non-Muslims about their true agenda. I have also demonstrated that the relationship between 
radicals and so-called moderates is a lot closer than we would like to think. At best, they share the 
goals of establishing sharia around the world, and differ only over the means to achieve this goal. At 
worst, they are allies in a good cop, bad cop game to extort concession after concession from the 
infidels. Moreover, even those who genuinely are moderate and secular in their approach may later 
change, or their children may change. This can be triggered by almost anything, either something in 
the news or a crisis in their personal lives, which will create a desire to become a better, more pious 
Muslim. The few remaining moderates can easily be silenced by violence from their more ruthless, 
radical counterparts. 

At the end of the day, what counts isn't the difference, if any, between moderate Muslims and 
radical Muslims, but between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between Muslims and ex-Muslims. 
Ibn Warraq says that there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. He is 
probably right. As he writes in the book Leaving Islam — Apostates Speak Out , a unique collection 
of testimonials by former Muslims, ex-Muslims are the only ones who know what it's all about, and 
we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries. 

Note from Fjordman: I have plans for at least a dozen longer essays after this, provided I have the 
time and financial opportunity to write them. The essays will be dealing with why I find a 
Reformation of Islam unlikely to happen, why the work of many self-appointed Muslim reformists is 
inadequate, why Islam probably cannot be reconciled with democracy and how the West should 
deal with these facts. All of my online essays can be republished for free by anybody who wants to, 
as long as credit is given to the author. Any financial donation, which can be given here, should be 
considered as payment in advance for future essays. 


What is the nature of multiculturalism? 

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 

I got some criticism of my essay about Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, labelling the 
latter as "cultural Marxism." Since some of this criticism came from people I respect, such as 
Danish writer Lars Hedegaard, I will take a second look at some of my assertions. 

Hedegaard has said that he believes Europe suffers from a death-wish following the world wars and 
de-colonization, and that Europeans allow themselves to be replaced through immigration because 
they want to die as a culture. It is true that there is a loss of cultural confidence in Europe, but there 
is one catch to this thesis: Many Europeans have never expressed any such desire to be wiped out. 

Professor Sigurd Skirbekk of the University of Oslo notes that "In 1994, the German periodical 
Focus pointed to opinion polls taken in Germany, France and England in which 55, 52 and 50 per 
cent, respectively, felt that their countries accepted too many immigrants." "From Norway we have 
a representative study from 1987 which showed that 51% of the people felt that the country should 
accept fewer immigrants; 25% felt that politicians should stick to current practice, while only 8% 
wanted to accept more immigrants. A similar study in Sweden, made a couple of years later, showed 
that 54% of Swedes felt that too many people were immigrating to Sweden." "In later studies the 
figures have varied somewhat; but there have always been more people who have favored a 
restrictive policy than those who favored liberalization." 

Thus, according to Skirbekk, "the extent of recent immigration cannot be explained on the basis of 
popular opinion [my emphasis]." 

I do agree that the fact that such massive changes can take place without the consent of the people, 
sometimes in direct opposition to it, is disturbing. It may reveal something disturbing about how 
certain elite groups can impose their will on a reluctant public. Or it may reveal that democratic 
nation states have been weakened by supranational organizations such as the EU, as well as human 
rights legislation, to the point where they have lost control over their own borders and get 
overwhelmed by migrants. In both cases, we are dealing with serious, and potentially lethal, flaws 
in our democratic system. 

American political analyst Tony Corn claims that "The recent referenda on the EU Constitution [in 
2005] have proven, if anything, how disconnected EU elites have become, not just from world 
realities, but from their own constituencies. It should now be clear to all that the intra-European gap 
between elites and public opinion is greater still (and in fact older) than the transatlantic gap 
between the U.S. and the EU. For Washington, there has never been a better time to do "European 
Outreach" and drive home the point that the existence of a "Sino-Islamic Connection" calls for 
closer transatlantic cooperation and a reassertion of the West." 

Bat Ye 'or thinks this is caused by the stealth agenda of the EU elites to create a larger entity of 
Europe and the Arab world. The promotion of Islamic culture under guise of Multiculturalism is an 
essential part of this plan. She talks about a conflict between Europeans and Eurabians, with the 
latter holding sway for now because they dominate the media and the political establishment. 
However, there are similar conflicts in Canada, Australia and the United States, too. I sometimes 
wonder whether the West at the beginning of the 21st century is mired in an ideological civil war 
between Westerners and post- Westerners. Although left-wingers tend to be more aggressive, post- 
Westerners have penetrated deep into the political right-wing, too. This is true. 

I have pointed out that there is usually a high concentration of Marxists in our anti-racist 


organizations. Professor Skirbekk, however, wonders whether there is a semi-religious undercurrent 
to the anti-racist movement, and that it is quite literally the equivalent of the witch hunts of previous 

"A number of researchers have come to see that certain issues in the migration debate has religious 
connotations. The Norwegian social anthropologist Inger Lise Lien, for instance, has written that 
'racism' in the public immigration debate has become a word used to label the demons among us, 
the impure from whom all decent people should remain aloof." "We have every reason to believe 
that the use of the term 'racist' in our day has many functional similarities with the use of the word 
'heretic' three hundred years ago." 

"It is presumably fully possible to join anti-racist movements with the sole motive of identifying 
with something that appears to be politically correct, or in order to be a part of a collective that 
entitles one to demonstrate and to harass splinter groups that no one cares to defend." But "behind 
the slogan 'crush the racists', there might well be something more than a primitive desire to 
exercise violence. The battle also involves an element of being in a struggle for purity versus 
impurity. And since racism is something murky, anti-racism and the colorful community it 
purportedly represents, becomes an expression of what is pure." 

What are the origins of Multiculturalism? Well, that depends on your perspective. Some elements of 
the fascination with more "primitive" cultures can be traced back to Jean- Jacques Rousseau in the 
18th century and his praise of the "noble savage" who had not been corrupted by society and 

Dutch novelist and commentator Leon de Winter thinks that is one of the unforeseen effects of the 
"hippie" cultural revolution in West in the 1960s. "Certain values were cherished: anti- fascism, 
feminism, secularism, pacifism, anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism, et cetera. It is here where the 
ideas of multiculturalism first showed up. It started with the so-called 'sub-cultures' of pseudo- 
bohemian artists, academic Marxists, all pretending that the existing values of Western civilization 
were overdue." 

American author Claire Berlinski claims that Multiculturalism is "completely incompatible with 
doctrinaire Marxism." "Many leftists did indeed end up as multiculturalists after the collapse of the 
Soviet Union, but multiculturalism is functioning here as a substitute for anti-capitalism (in turn a 
substitute for something else), and not as its natural extension." 

Lars Hedegaard believes Multiculturalism was produced in the United States following the Civil 
Rights movement in the 1960s, and from there exported to Europe. By the 1980s and 90s, when the 
term began to be widely used even in Europe, it had "turned into an ideological platform on which 
the left could base its claim to power" when Socialism was becoming discredited. Thus although 
Multiculturalism "is not a weed that has grown" in the Socialist garden, it is now the core ideology 
of the Left. Hedegaard doubts whether there is any Utopianism embedded in the new ideology, 

"For now the multicultural ideology functions as an umbrella under which a variety of political and 
economic interest groups — left, right and center — may comfortably pursue their particular 
interests. In Denmark it was very clear that once the left had abandoned its anti-capitalist rhetoric 
and no longer called for the nationalization of the means of production, the capitalists lost all 
interest in ideological matters. The result can be described as an implied social contract: The 
capitalists and much of the traditional political center and right are perfectly willing to accept the 
left's ideological hegemony so long as the leftists do not threaten their special interests. In fact, as 
long as it works, it is a perfect system where nobody is interested in rocking the boat. The left may 


continue to import its social clients — and voters — and the right may feel secure because the 
Muslim newcomers do not settle in their neighborhoods and have no other political agenda than 
identity politics." 

He thinks this alliance was displayed during the Muhammad cartoons crisis, "when the entire left 
allied itself with the cultural, academic and media elite, most of the Christian church and prominent 
capitalists and bourgeois politicians to condemn the cartoons and Prime Minister Anders Fogh 
Rasmussen for refusing to compromise free speech." 

I appreciate many of these points, and I agree that Multiculturalism is not exclusively the recourse 
of the political Left, which may indicate that its roots are complicated and not entirely based on 
Marxism. However, I disagree with those stating that the closely related form of mind control called 
Political Correctness has no ties whatsoever to traditional Marxism. 

Koenraad Elst describes how Ruby Schembri, a white 35-year old Maltese national who moved to 
Britain in 2004, earned £750 by taking her employer, HSBC Bank, to court claiming race 
discrimination because she had overheard a private conversation between colleagues. Watford 
Employment Tribunal found both Debbie Jones, a local bank manager, and HSBC guilty of racial 
discrimination after Ms Schembri claimed that she had overheard Ms Jones say "I hate foreigners" 
and "I am against immigration" in a conversation with a colleague in April 2005. 

This was one of the first cases to find that that a comment not made directly to another person, who 
in this incident was also of the same race as the accused, can be construed as racism. Moreover, the 
court ruled that using the term "foreigners" is racist. The verdict also indicated that the mere fact of 
"disliking" foreigners constituted a crime, even if one's dislike was purely private and not shown 
directly in one's behaviour towards a foreigner. Elst points out that thanks to the Multicultural 
society and its guiding ideology PC, people who in the past would have pursued careers as 
Inquisition officials or Stasi informers in Communist East Germany can now snitch on colleagues 
and neighbors. 

In another story from the UK, the Labour government is considering denying multimillion-pound 
contracts to companies that fail to employ enough black and Asian workers. Private firms could be 
asked to provide figures showing the numbers of black and Asian employees on their payroll. This 
would then be compared with the proportion of people living in a surrounding area. According to 
writer Neil Davenport , "the 'affirmative action' proposals are less about tackling racial 
discrimination per se than they are a mechanism to bring the private sector within government 

As both these examples from the UK — and many more could be added — demonstrate, there are, 
in fact, quite a few common features between Multiculturalism/Political Correctness and traditional 
Marxism. In Marxist societies, the public is continuously bombarded with ideological indoctrination 
through the media. This constant brainwashing to demonstrate that the ruling ideology is benevolent 
is a very good indication that exact opposite is true. In case this isn't be enough, there is also a 
system for snitching on those who won't comply with the directives, as well as punishment, public 
harassment and "re-education" of those individuals who fail to submit to the Official State Ideology. 

This Ideology implies that the state has to seize control of, or at least regulate and interfere with, all 
sectors of society, which leaves little room for individual freedom and thus real democracy. If we 
notice all the new laws restricting speech and behavior in the Multicultural society, not to mention 
the massive re-writing of our history and the total change in the very nature of our institutions, we 
understand that our countries moved rapidly in a totalitarian direction the very second 
Multiculturalism was adopted as the ethos of the state. 


There is little doubt in my mind that this post-democratic ideology was desired and encouraged by 
certain groups. If we look at the people supporting the most totalitarian and anti-freedom aspects of 
Political Correctness, it becomes apparent that it is frequently the same organizations and 
sometimes individuals who a generation earlier supported traditional, economic Marxism. They 
now hide their goals under slogans of "diversity" and "anti-racism," but the essence of their ideas is 
still the same. 

Berlinski, Hedegaard and others seem to argue that our problems lie less in any deliberate 
ideological project among certain political groups and more in a general loss of cultural confidence 
in the West. This is, however, a false dichotomy. It is both. 

I agree with Bat Ye'or that the rise of Eurabia is closely tied to the European Union. There is also 
little doubt in my mind that many Leftist intellectuals in our media and our universities want to 
erase the foundations of Western civilization and replace them with something else. 

It is true that these groups could never have been so successful in implementing this if there had 
been stronger popular resistance. There is indeed a loss of cultural confidence, sometimes bordering 
on active self-loathing, that has penetrated deep into the general populace, not just some elite 
groups. Europe's faith in itself was severely wounded in the trenches of WW1, and perhaps 
mortally wounded in Auschwitz. 

However, as the numbers quoted by Skirbekk demonstrate, there has never been any unanimous 
enthusiasm for the Multicultural project. It has been championed at best by only parts of the 
population, but by a disproportionate amount of powerful post- Westerners in the media, the 
academia and the political establishment, not to mention by unsupervised supranational 
organizations such as the EU. Perhaps Multiculturalism is also championed to hide the fact that 
national authorities have lost, or deliberately vacated, control over their borders. 

The prevalence of hate speech laws and the sheer force of the pro-Multicultural propaganda are 
powerful indications of the resistance to it in sections of the public. Neither would have been 
necessary if everybody had been thrilled about the project or happily embraced their own 
extinction, as Hedegaard implies. The draconian Discrimination Act in Norway was passed by 
stealth, almost entirely without public debate, for precisely this reason. Multiculturalism must 
increasingly be forced by co-option or deception on a reluctant populace. 

I agree with Mr. Hedegaard that there sometimes seems to be an alliance of convenience between 
left-wingers and right-wingers. The European Union, for instance, cannot exclusively be explained 
as a Socialist undertaking. Some Marxists have been rather critical of the EU, but they are usually 
critical of it for the "wrong" reasons, because they think the common market is a neo-liberal 
conspiracy to promote more capitalism. Their judgment thus cannot be trusted on other issues. 

French Socialists were for instance worried that plumbers from Poland might do the work cheaper 
than local plumbers because of the EU. They did not object to the EU encouraging 
Multiculturalism, anti-Americanism, demonization of Israel and pro-Islamic policies, since these 
issues all suited their own ideological agenda. Indeed, some of the same argument about the lack of 
democratic accountability and massive bureaucracy could be made about organizations such as the 
United Nations, and the UN is always applauded by left-wingers. Which shows that Leftists are not 
critical of the EU primarily because it is "too undemocratic," but because it is "too capitalist." 

All in all, I admit that it may be a tad simplistic to label Political Correctness as cultural Marxism, 
but I disagree with assertions that there is no connection at all between Multiculturalism and 


Human rights fundamentalism, NGOistan and the multicultural 

Sunday, October 01, 2006 

Respect for individuals and human rights are frequently — and rightfully — quoted as crucial 
factors separating Western civilization from Islam. Ohmyrus, one of the pundits at Iranian ex- 
Muslim Ali Sina's website www. faithfreedom. org , explains important differences between the 
Western and the Islamic views of human rights: 

"In August of 1990, representatives of 54 Muslim countries met in Cairo and signed the Cairo 
Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. What then are Islamic Human Rights and how do they differ 
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)? 

The Cairo Declaration allows stoning as punishment, prohibits Muslims from changing their 
religion, prohibits usury, does not give women equal rights and divides the world between Muslims 
and infidels. It makes it clear that Muslims are the "best nation" whose duty it is to make you 
become like them. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is a harsh document that comes 
from a harsh faith." 

Human rights are thus an important component of our defense against sharia. However, is it also 
possible that the concept of human rights can be pushed too far, and become a self-defeating idea? 
Is there such as thing as human rights fundamentalism? 

In Britain, a West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears 
their human rights are being breached. Debbie Lawson, neo-natal manager at the hospital's special 
care baby unit, said: "Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the 
same rights as you or me." 

Norwegian medical doctor Stale Fredriksen thinks that giving homework to school children violates 
their human rights. He refers to article 24 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating 
that: "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours." 
Dr. Fredriksen believes school children in Norway don't have this right. 

These examples are, admittedly, rather extreme, and look silly more than anything else. But this 
mentality may have less than funny consequences in other circumstances. Traditional Islamic law 
prescribes the death penalty for Muslims who want to leave Islam, as well as for persons who 
"insult" Muhammad or Islam with blasphemous statements. How will people who are afraid that 
cooing at babies or giving homework to children might violate their human rights fare against 
people who think that those who insult Muhammad should have their heads cut off? 

In August 2006, Dennis Parker of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told a news 
conference: "The price to pay for racial profiling is too high. All people should be treated in the 
same way regardless of their race, their ethnicity or their religion." The news conference, convened 
by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, highlighted the case of an Iraqi-born U.S. 
family, whose members said they were held for six hours, questioned and searched at John F. 
Kennedy Airport, only days after Britain foiled a plot by Islamic terrorists to bomb multiple U.S.- 
bound planes. 


In the old days, people used to talk about "death before dishonor." In our age, this has become 
"death before discrimination." Westerners would rather get killed by Islamic terrorists than do 
profiling of Muslims, because this would be "racism," which has thus quite literally become a 
mortal sin, perhaps the only sin left in a world where there is no good or bad and everything is 
permissible and "equal." 

The ideological sickness of the West could be called Egalitarianism, of which Multiculturalism, but 
also radical Feminism and sometimes economic Marxism, is a part. Everybody should be equal, not 
just before the law, but their choices should be equally valid, too. If somebody has not achieved 
exactly the same level as everybody else, this constitutes "discrimination" and requires state 
intervention to correct. 

The scary thing is that Egalitarianism is not just limited to the political Left anymore. It has made 
inroads into what used to be the political Right, too. 

Bjorn Stserk is the Grand Old Man of Norwegian blogging. He's also considered a right-winger by 
local standards. According to him, terrorism will end only if or when the terrorists grow tired of it : 

Brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, 
ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even 
if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an 
open and tolerant society than to survive this trip. Brave is insisting that Arabs not be 
searched more carefully in airport security than anyone else, because you believe that it 
is more important not to discriminate against people based on their race than to keep the 
occasional terrorist from getting on a plane. 

Nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane at gunpoint to get to Britain should have been 
admitted to the country as genuine refugees and allowed to live and work there freely, the High 
Court stated in a ruling. Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migration Watch UK, said Britain 
should ditch the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Writer Robin Harris noted that "The traditional British view is that rights should be negative: we 
may do whatever the law does not forbid." This is how Anglo-Saxon law has been shaped from the 
very beginning, all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215, which placed limitations on the king's 

According to Harris, "We do not expect from the state a positive right to specific benefits a job, or a 
house, or a good education. Yet it is precisely these kinds of rights that continental Europeans have 
come to expect. Because of the European Convention (ECHR) it is now impossible to expel 
foreigners who pose a threat to the country's security," or to maintain immigration control. 

In Norway, the Directorate of Immigration gave all Iranian asylum seekers residency if applicants 
claimed to be homosexual , even if the testimony often had little backing or appeared to be patently 
false. Homosexuality is punishable in Iran, but the demands of proof are extremely high, making 
punishment rare in practice. Protecting gays from persecution sounds nice in theory, but when this 
is combined with absolutely no amount of proof, it becomes a suicidal decision to abandon your 
own national borders. 

Egalitarianism and human rights fundamentalism become especially lethal when combined with an 
entitlement mentality, notions of positive rights and ideas of group rights over individual rights. 


It is possible for all members of a society to obtain their negative rights, such as freedom from 
oppression and tyranny, at the same time. These include the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit 
of Happiness," as stated by Thomas Jefferson in the 1776 United States Declaration of 
Independence. This becomes a lot more difficult once we introduce the idea of positive rights, such 
as the right to a job. These require others to actively do something to fulfill your rights for you. 

In The Case for Sovereignty , Jeremy A. Rabkin describes how Jiirgen Habermas, Germany's most 
celebrated philosopher, has coined the term "global domestic policy." Habermas talks about 
establishing a structure of international law and authority that will control and direct all 
governments in their governing duties. 

However, an international authority able to secure universal peace would require the means of 
enforcing peace. It would require the authority to resolve every dispute that might otherwise lead to 
war and to resolve all conflicting claims about the distribution of resources, within and between 

As Rabkin timely asks: "Who could challenge or constrain a world authority with such immense 
power? Even if it were constrained by a formal constitution, who could possibly ensure that the 
world authority remained within its proper bounds? How could it be anything like a democracy? 
Would a hundred small nations outvote the half-dozen largest nations? Or would a billion Chinese, 
a billion Indians, and a half-billion Southeast Asians be allowed to form a permanent majority, 
dictating law and justice to the rest of the world? 

It is not a bad thing for the world for independent countries to remain independent. It is not a bad 
thing even for small countries — or perhaps especially for small countries." 

Rabkin describes how the US Founding Fathers made federal law (and the federal Constitution) the 
"supreme law of the land." He thinks the "Founders would have been appalled at the thought that 
the federal government, in turn, would be subordinate to some supranational or international entity, 
which could claim priority in this way over the American Constitution and American laws." 

Yet this is precisely what is happening in Europe: "All members of the EU have now bound 
themselves to a scheme in which the European Court of Justice treats mere treaties as superior to 
national constitutions — and national courts give priority to the rulings of this European Court, 
even against their own parliaments and their own national constitutions." 

The EU is always presuming some consensus that will — supposedly — be discovered by 
bureaucrats and judges. In the long run, "the American scheme is bound to be more alert to security 
threats," since the EU scheme "always suggests that people can be protected by negotiations, since 
Europeans have ceded supreme power to a 'construction' that doesn't have an army. The structure 
encourages Europeans to continually disregard actual threats to their security." 

Rabkin also talks about the possibility of the Unites States leaving the United Nations, "to remind 
ourselves what we are seeking at the U.N. — not a world government, but simply a tool for our 

An International Criminal Court (ICC) already exists . How is it going to function within a 
worldwide criminal justice system without a world state? And what other international courts will 
later be established? Will they be limited only to genocide and war crimes, or will they expand into 
much more sensitive areas? Will Islamic countries attempt to enforce sharia through these courts on 
a global basis? They are already trying to ban Islamophobia and defamation of Islam through the 


Following the Muhammad cartoons jihad in 2006, an op-ed in the Baltimore's Jewish Times 
proposed the creation of an International Religious Court , composed of Christian, Muslim and 
Jewish clergymen: "Anyone feeling that his or her religion was insulted could appeal to the 
International Religious Court for a ruling on the matter, and the court would then determine whether 
a penalty should be invoked. It would be the responsibility of the government on whose territory the 
action took place to impose the penalty" 

In the business world, outsourcing or contracting out tasks to an external entity that specializes in a 
particular activity has become very common. However, not enough attention has been paid to the 
outsourcing of both freedom of speech and control over immigration in Western nations. 

Internally in these countries, we have a maze of various organizations, sometimes supported by the 
state, sometimes not, that put together make up an important component of the machinery of power. 
Perhaps we can label them, collectively, as the Multicultural Industry, since many of them make 
their living off — and have their personal prestige tied to — the Multicultural project. And just like 
the oil industry will oppose anybody going against their interests, so the Multicultural Industry will 
oppose anybody criticizing the Multicultural project. 

In addition to this, we have another, international network of non-governmental organizations, 
NGOs. Since many of them seem to have a decidedly anti-Western and pro-Islamic tilt, I will call 
them collectively, NGOistan. 

Quite often, representatives of the Multicultural Industry, NGOistan and anti-racist organizations 
team up together, sometimes in collaboration with UN bureaucrats, to influence national 
immigration policies. Frequently, they also denounce advocates of stricter immigration policies as 
"anti-democratic forces," which is quite ironic given the fact that most of these groups and 
individuals have not been elected by the people and do not represent them. Isn't it the other way 
around? Shouldn't the people of a nation state be allowed to decide who should be allowed to settle 
in their lands, not bureaucrats and self-appointed guardians of the truth with no popular mandate? 

Too many NGOs have a political agenda that tends to be anti-Western and anti-capitalist. Alan 
Dershowitz , professor of law at Harvard University, responded to criticism by human rights NGO 
Amnesty International to Israeli military actions to prevent attacks from Jihadist organization 
Hizballah in Lebanon: 

"Had the Allies been required to fight World War II under the rules of engagement selectively 
applied to Amnesty International to Israel, our "greatest generation" might have lost that war. If 
attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, 
and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. 
Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities." 

The International Committee of the Red Cross wanted to visit the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by 
Hizballah to ensure they were treated humanely. However, Hizballah has no obligations under 
international law. It is not a nation state. But at the same time, many people seem determined to 
ensure that Hizballah gets all the benefits of international law, without having to abide by it itself. 

French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Europe has made human rights 
its new gospel. Has human rights fundamentalism approached the status of quasi-religion? Have we 
acquired a new class of scribes, who claim the exclusive right to interpret their Holy Texts in order 
to reveal Absolute Truth, and scream "blasphemy" at the few heretics who dare question their 
authority? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it is written by 
humans, and may thus contain human flaws. We shouldn't treat as if it were a revelation from God, 


carved into stone. Far less should we deem as infallible the veritable maze of regulations and well- 
meaning human rights resolutions that have rendered democratic nations virtually unable to defend 

Multiculturalists dismiss violent verses from the Koran and say that these should be read "within 
their historical context." However, the same Multiculturalists get furious and call you "Fascist" if 
you question the UN Convention on Status of Refugees. But shouldn't UN conventions also be read 
within their historical context? The UN Convention on Refugees was written in 1951, when 
communications were slower, when world population and migration was much less than it is now, 
when we had no Islamic terrorist groups operating within our countries, no Third World ghettos in 
our major cities and when nation states still managed to maintain their territorial integrity. Isn't it 
then reasonable to have a second look at it now, as circumstances have changed? 

If democratic nations are bogged down by suicidal human rights regulations while non-democratic 
states simply ignore any agreements they sign, doesn't this mean that we run a risk that human 
rights and international law, instead of helping people in repressive countries, will weaken the 
democratic countries that actually respect them? 

These are not easy questions, and we will have to grapple with them for a long time to come. But 
one thing is certain: Societies that have become too soft to protect their territories have become too 
soft to survive. The West may have strayed too far in the direction of signing well-meaning 
conventions removed from the realities of human life. Western civilization may need a correction 


Who Are We, Who Are Our Enemies - The Cost of Historical Amnesia 

October 2, 2006 9:34 AM 

"The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, 
Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years, but this is the first 
history of the Muslim wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, however, 
have appeared on its Christian counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often 
compared, although they lasted less than two hundred years and unlike the Jihad, which 
is universal, were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land. Moreover, the 
Crusades have been over for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the 
world. The Jihad has been the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. 
It has, in fact, been largely ignored. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives 
the Crusades eighty times more space than the Jihad. " 

The quote is from Paul Fregosi's book Jihad in the West from 1998. Mr. Fregosi found that his 
book about the history of Islamic Holy War in Europe from the 7th to the 20th centuries was 
difficult to get published in the mid-1990s, when publishers had the Salman Rushdie case in 
fresh memory... 

The Barbary Jihad piracy had been going on since the earliest Arab-Islamic expansion in the 
7th and 8th centuries. Francisco Gabrieli states that: 

"According to present-day concepts of international relations, such activities amounted 
to piracy, but they correspond perfectly to jihad, an Islamic religious duty. The conquest 
of Crete, in the east, and a good portion of the corsair warfare along the Provencal and 
Italian coasts, in the West, are among the most conspicuous instances of such "private 
initiative" which contributed to Arab domination in the Mediterranean." 

A pro to-typical Muslim naval razzia occurred in 846 when a fleet of Arab Jihadists arrived at 
the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the 
basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained. 

During the 16th and 17th centuries, as many Europeans were captured, sold, and enslaved by 
the Barbary corsairs as were West Africans made captive and shipped for plantation labor in 
the Americas by European slave traders. Robert Davis' methodical enumeration indicates that 
between one, and one and one-quarter million white European Christians were enslaved by 
the Barbary Muslims from 1530 through 1780. 

White Gold , Giles Milton's remarkable account of Cornish cabin boy Thomas Pellow, 
captured by Barbary corsairs in 1716, documents how Jihad razzias had extended to England 
[p. 13, "By the end of the dreadful summer of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth reckoned that 
1,000 skiffs had been destroyed, and a similar number of villagers carried off into slavery"], 
Wales, southern Ireland [p. 16, "In 1631. ..200 Islamic soldiers... sailed to the village of 
Baltimore, storming ashore with swords drawn and catching the villagers totally by surprise. 
(They) carried off 237 men, women, and children and took them to Algiers... The French padre 
Pierre Dan was in the city (Algiers) at the time... He witnessed the sale of the captives in the 
slave auction. 'It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market... Women were 
separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers... on one side a husband 
was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope 
that they'd ever see each other again'."], and even Reykjavik, Iceland!... 


Yet some Arabs seem to miss the good, old days when they could extract Jizya payments from 
the West. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has stated that he thinks that European nations 
should pay 10 billion euros ($12.7 billion dollars) a year to Africa to help it stop migrants 
seeking a better life flooding northwards into Europe. He added without elaborating: "Earth 
belongs to everybody. Why they (young Africans) emigrated to Europe — this should be 
answered by Europeans." 

Apart from being a clear-cut example of how migration, or rather population dumping by 
Third World countries, has become a tool for blackmail in the 21st century, this is a throwback 
to the age when Tripoli could extract payments from Europe. 

Sadly, Americans seem to have forgotten the lessons from this proud chapter in their history, 
when they refused to pay ransom to Muslims like the Europeans did and instead sent warships 
to the Mediterranean under the slogan "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute!" Since 
WW2, we've had three major conflicts in the Balkans: In Cyprus, in Bosnia and in Kosovo. 
On all three occasions, the United States have interfered on behalf of Muslims. Yet despite 
this fact, two of the 9/11 hijackers said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge 
the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia. 

As Efraim Karsh, author of the book Islamic Imperialism: A History points out, America is 
reviled in the Muslim world not because of its specific policies "but because, as the pre- 
eminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of a universal 
Islamic empire (orumma)." 

According to Hugh Fitzgerald , "One must keep in mind both the way in which some atrocities 
ascribed to Serbs were exaggerated, while the atrocities inflicted on them were minimized or 
ignored altogether. But what was most disturbing was that there was no context to anything: 
nothing about the centuries of Muslim rule. 

Had such a history been discussed early on, Western governments might have understood and 
attempted to assuage the deep fears evoked by the Bosnian Muslim leader, Izetbegovic, when 
he wrote that he intended to create a Muslim state in Bosnia and impose the Sharia not merely 
there, but everywhere that Muslims had once ruled in the Balkans. Had the Western world 
shown the slightest intelligent sympathy or understanding of what that set off in the 
imagination of many Serbs (and elsewhere, among the Christians in the Balkans and in 
Greece), there might never have been such a violent Serbian reaction, and someone like 
[Slobodan] Milosevic might never have obtained power." 

In 1809, after the battle on Cegar Hill, by order of Turkish pasha Hurshid the skulls of the 
killed Serbian soldiers were built in a tower, Skull Tower, on the way to Constantinople. 3 
meters high, Skull Tower was built out of 952 skulls as a warning to the Serbian people not to 
oppose their Muslim rulers. Some years later, a chapel was built over the skulls. 

Similar Jihad massacres were committed not only against the Serbs, but against the Greeks, 
the Bulgarians and other non-Muslims who slowly rebelled against the Ottoman Empire 
throughout the 19th century. Professor Vahakn Dadrian and others have clearly identified 
Jihad as a critical factor in the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century. This genocide by 
the Turks allegedly inspired Adolf Hitler in his Holocaust against the Jews later: "Who, after 
all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" 

As Efraim Karsh notes, "The Ottomans embarked on an orgy of bloodletting in response to 
the nationalist aspirations of their European subjects. The Greek war of independence of the 


1820's, the Danubian uprisings of 1848 and the attendant Crimean war, the Balkan explosion 
of the 1870's, the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897~all were painful reminders of the costs of 
resisting Islamic imperial rule." 

In his book Onward Muslim Soldiers , Robert Spencer quotes a letter from Bosnia, written in 
1860 by the acting British Consul in Sarajevo, James Zohrab : 

"The hatred of the Christians toward the Bosniak Mussulmans is intense. During a period of 
nearly 300 years they were subjected to much oppression and cruelty. For them no other law 
but the caprice of their masters existed.... Oppression cannot now be carried on as openly as 
formerly, but it must not be supposed that, because the Government employes do not 
generally appear as the oppressors, the Christians are well treated and protected." 

Bosnia's wartime president Alija Izetbegovic died in 2003, hailed worldwide as a moderate 
Muslim leader. Little was said in Western media about the fact that in his 1970 Islamic 
Declaration, which got him jailed by the Communists in Yugoslavia, he advocated "a struggle 
for creating a great Islamic federation from Morocco to Indonesia, from the tropical Africa to 
the Central Asia. The Islamic movement should and must start taking over the power as soon 
as it is morally and numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, 
but also to build up a new Islamic authority." 

Alija Izetbegovic also received money from a Saudi businessman, Yassin al-Kadi, who has 
been designated by the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union as a 
financier of al-Qaeda terrorists. Evan F. Kohlmann , author of Al-Qaeda's Jihad in Europe: The 
Afghan-Bosnian Network , argues that the "key to understanding Al Qaida's European cells 
lies in the Bosnian war of the 1990s." In 1992, the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija 
Izetbegovic issued a passport in the Vienna embassy to Osama bin Laden. The Wall Street 
Journal reported in 2001 that "for the past 10 years, the most senior leaders of al Qaeda have 
visited the Balkans, including bin Laden himself on three occasions between 1994 and 1996. 
The Egyptian surgeon turned terrorist leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri has operated terrorist 
training camps, weapons of mass destruction factories and money-laundering and drug- 
trading networks throughout Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Bosnia." 

Samuel Huntington mentioned already in 1993 in his famous article "The Clash of 
Civilizations" in the journal Foreign Affairs that both the Shi'a Muslims of Iran and the Sunni 
Muslims of Saudi Arabia supplied substantial funding, weapons and men to the Bosnians. 
Thousands of foreign fighters or 'Mujahadeen' from Islamic countries came to Bosnia to fight 
on the side of local Muslims in the bloody 1992-1995 civil war. Many of these Mujahadeen 
remained in Bosnia after the war, and some have been operating terrorist training camps and 
indoctrinating local youths. 

Terrorists have been working, not just in Bosnia but in Albania and all over the Balkans, to 
recruit non-Arab sympathizers — so-called "white Muslims" with Western features who 
theoretically could more easily blend into European cities and execute attacks. 

Saudi Arabia is said to have invested more than $1 billion in the Sarajevo region alone, for 
projects that include the construction of 158 mosques. The Islamic world is thus using the 
Balkans as a launching pad for Jihad against the rest of Europe and the West. "There are 
religious centres in Bulgaria that belong to Islamic groups financed mostly by Saudi Arabian 
groups," the head of Bulgarian military intelligence warned. According to him, the centres 
were in southern and southeastern Bulgaria, where the country's Muslims, mainly of Turkish 
origin, are concentrated, and "had links with similar organisations in Kosovo, Bosnia and 


Macedonia. For them Bulgaria seems to be a transit point to Western Europe." He said the 
steps were taken to prevent terrorist groups gaining a foothold in Bulgaria, which shares a 
border with Turkey. Bulgaria's Turkish minority accounts for 10 percent of the country's 

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia passed a law allowing ethnic Albanians to 
display the Albanian national flag in areas where they form the majority. The decision came as 
a result of seven months of heavy fighting in 2001 involving Albanian separatists, and 
following pressure from the European Union , always ready to please Muslims. 

Ethnic Albanians make up about 25 per cent of Macedonia's population. If the demographic 
trends are anything like in Kosovo, where the predominantly Muslim Albanians have been 
out-breeding their non-Muslim neighbors, the Macedonians could be facing serious trouble in 
the near future. In Kosovo, dozens of churches and monasteries have been destroyed or 
seriously damaged following ethnic cleansing of Christian Serbs, all under the auspices of 
NATO soldiers. 

In a commentary, "We bombed the wrong side?" former Canadian UNPROFOR Commander 
Lewis MacKenzie wrote, "The Kosovo-Albanians have played us like a Stradivarius. We have 
subsidized and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an ethnically pure and 
independent Kosovo. We have never blamed them for being the perpetrators of the violence in 
the early '90s and we continue to portray them as the designated victim today in spite of 
evidence to the contrary. When they achieve independence with the help of our tax dollars 
combined with those of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, just consider the message of encouragement 
this sends to other terrorist-supported independence movements around the world." 

Martti Ahtisaari , former President of Finland and now Chief United Nations negotiator for 
Kosovo, caused anger in Serbia when he stated that "Serbs are guilty as people," implying that 
they would have to pay for it, possibly by losing the province of Kosovo which is seeking 

I disagree with Mr. Ahtisaari. It is one thing to criticize the brutality of the Milosevic regime. 
It is quite another thing to claim that "Serbs are guilty as a people." If anybody in the Balkans 
can be called guilty as a people, it is the Turks, not the Serbs. The Turks have left a trail of 
blood across much of Europe and the Mediterranean for centuries, culminating in the 
Armenian genocide in the 20th century, which Turkey still refuses to acknowledge, let alone 
apologize for. 

Dimitar Angelov elucidates the impact of the Ottoman Jihad on the vanquished Balkan 

"...the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula accomplished by the Turks over the course of 
about two centuries caused the incalculable ruin of material goods, countless massacres, 
the enslavement and exile of a great part of the population - in a word, a general and 
protracted decline of productivity, as was the case with Asia Minor after it was occupied 
by the same invaders. This decline in productivity is all the more striking when one 
recalls that in the mid-fourteenth century, as the Ottomans were gaining a foothold on 
the peninsula, the States that existed there - Byzantium, Bulgaria and Serbia - had 
already reached a rather high level of economic and cultural development.... The 
campaigns of Mourad II (1421-1451) and especially those of his successor, Mahomet II 
(1451-1481) in Serbia, Bosnia, Albania and in the Byzantine princedom of the 
Peloponnesus, were of a particularly devastating character." 


This Ottoman Jihad tradition is still continued by "secular" Turkey to this day Michael J. 
Totten visited Varosha, the Ghost City of Cyprus , in 2005. The city was deserted during the 
Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and is now fenced off and patrolled by the Turkish 
occupiers. The Turks carved up the island. Greek Cypriot citizens in Varosha expected to 
return to their homes within days. Instead, the Turks seized the empty city and wrapped it in 
fencing and wire. 

In March 2006, Italian Luigi Geninazzi made a report from the same area. 180,000 persons 
live in the northern part of the island, 100,000 of whom are colonists originally from 
mainland Turkey. 

According to Geninazzi, the Islamization of the north of Cyprus has been concretized in the 
destruction of all that was Christian. Yannis Eliades, director of the Byzantine Museum of 
Nicosia, calculates that 25,000 icons have disappeared from the churches in the zone occupied 
by the Turks. Stupendous Byzantine and Romanesque churches, imposing monasteries, 
mosaics and frescoes have been sacked, violated, and destroyed. Many have been turned into 
restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. 

Geninazzi confronted Huseyn Ozel, a government spokesman for the self-proclaimed Turkish 
Republic of Northern Cyprus, with this. Most of the mosques in Greek Cypriot territory have 
been restored. So why are churches still today being turned into mosques? The Turkish 
Cypriot functionary spreads his arms wide: "It is an Ottoman custom..." 

A person from Finland, one of the northernmost countries in Europe which has had very little 
direct experience with Jihad, can perhaps be excused for understanding so little of it. But 
people from Russia, a country which was once under the Tartar Yoke, should know better. So 
why are the Russians helping The Islamic Republic of Iran with missile and nuclear 
technology that will eventually be used to intimidate the West? Are the Russians so naive that 
they believe this beast won't eventually come back to bite them, too? Iran is secretly training 
Chechen rebels in sophisticated terror techniques to enable them to carry out more effective 
attacks against Russian forces, the Sunday Telegraph has revealed. 

Islam was controlled in the Soviet Union but has had a renaissance since its downfall in 1991, 
helped by funds from the Middle East. This re-Islamization of Central Asia should really 
worry the Russians. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a border security 
project in the region, partly to avoid being demographically overwhelmed by Muslims. But 
the problem exists within Russia itself, too. 

Russia's non-Muslim population is declining, but numbers are rising in Muslim regions. Will 
the country called Russia still exist in the future? And if so, will it be the Russia of Pushkin or 
of Abdullah? It is understandable that the Russians have Great Power ambitions of their own. 
However, one would hope that they will wake up, remember their history and realize that 
there are worse threats out there than American power. 

Paul Fregosi has pointed out that "Western colonization of nearby Muslim lands lasted 130 
years, from the 1830s to the 1960s. Muslim colonization of nearby European lands lasted 
1300 years, from the 600s to the mid-1960s. Yet, strangely, it is the Muslims, the Arabs and 
the Moors to be precise, who are the most bitter about colonialism and the humiliations to 
which they have been subjected; and it is the Europeans who harbor the shame and the guilt. 
It should be the other way around." 

Janos (John) Hunyadi, Hungarian warrior and captain-general, is today virtually unknown 


outside Hungary, but he probably did more than any other individual in stemming the Turkish 
invasion in the fifteenth century. His actions spanned all the countries of the Balkans, leading 
international armies, negotiating with kings and popes. Hunyadi died of plague after having 
destroyed an Ottoman fleet outside Belgrade inl456. His work slowed the Muslim advance, 
and may thus have saved Western Europe from falling to Islam. By extension, he may have 
helped save Western civilization in North America and Australia, too. Yet hardly anybody in 
West knows who he is. Our children don't learn his name, they are only taught about the evils 
of Western colonialism and the dangers of Islamophobia. 

Western Europe today is a strange and very dangerous mix of arrogance and self-loathing. 
Muslims are creating havoc and attacking their non-Muslim neighbors from Thailand to India. 
It is extremely arrogant to believe that the result will be any different in the Netherlands, 
Britain or Italy, or for that matter in the United States or Canada, than it has been everywhere 
else. It won't. If we had the humility to listen to the advice of the Hindus of India or even our 
Christian cousins in south-eastern Europe, we wouldn't be in as much trouble as we are now. 

On the other hand, if we didn't have such a culture of self-loathing, where our own cultural 
traditions are ridiculed in favor of a meaningless Multicultural cocktail, we probably wouldn't 
have allowed massive Muslim immigration, either. There doesn't have to be a contradiction 
between being proud of your own cultural heritage and knowing that there may still be lessons 
you can learn from others. A wise man can do both. Westerners of or our age do neither. Sun 
Tzu, a contemporary of the great Chinese thinker Confucius, wrote The Art of War, the 
influential book on military strategy, 2500 years ago. It is a book that deserves to be read in 
full, but perhaps the most famous quotation from it is this one: 

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be 
imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, 
you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will 
be imperiled in every single battle." 

The West has forgotten who our enemies are, but worse, we have also forgotten who we 
are. We are going to pay a heavy price for this historical amnesia. 


Why the European Union Must be Dismantled 

October 26, 2006 3:04 PM 

In my criticism of the European Union , I have been accused of being too positive towards the 
nation state. It is true that Western civilization isn't exclusively about nation states. The 
Renaissance took place in the city states of Italy while nation states were non-existent or 
weak. It is also true that there is a potentially destructive side to nationalism as opposed to 
defensive patriotism. However, our current democratic system is tied to nation states. The EU 
didn't cause all of Europe's problems, but it made some of them worse, and added a few new 
ones. If the EU collapsed tomorrow, we would still be in a lot of trouble, but at least we would 
have a fighting chance. I have heard a number of people say that "Europe is already lost." I do 
agree with them that if the political situation remains as it is today, then yes, Europe is lost to 
Islam, or at least significant parts of Western Europe, maybe not all of Eastern Europe. But 
I'm not so sure whether the political situation will, or has to, remain as it is today. 

Tens of millions of ordinary citizens are now rapidly waking up to the full scale of the Islamic 
threat. The problem is that many Western Europeans have a sense of hopelessness because 
they need to confront so many enemies at the same time. Let's call them Enemy 1, 2 and 3. 
Enemy 1 is Islam and Muslim immigration. Enemy 2 is the anti-Western bias of our media 
and academia. 

Enemy number 2 is common to all Western nations, also the USA, Canada and Australia. 
Enemy 1 is also common to all Western nations, but more powerful in Europe because of 
sheer numbers and proximity to the heartland of the Islamic world. 

Enemy 3 consists of Eurabians and EU federalists, who are unique to Europe and make the 
situation more critical here than it is in North America or Australia. 

The feeling among many of those Europeans who now understand the threat is that we can 
face down and defeat one of these enemies, maybe two, but not all three at the same time. We 
need a major shake-up in the political situation, something that is visible to everybody, to 
demonstrate that change is possible. The downfall of the European Union could do the trick. 

Muslims may actually have done us a favor. The massive infiltration of Leftist and anti- 
Western rhetoric that now permeates our media and academia predates Islam, but the failure 
to identify the threat posed by Muslim immigration has exposed it. Many ordinary citizens 
still remember that our so-called academic experts and media columnists hailed 
Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, which are turning out to be the most massive 
mistakes in modern Western history. This will sooner or later trigger a backlash. 

The bad news is that all our various enemies are closely tied together. The good news is also 
that all our various enemies are closely tied together, and may all go down if one of them 

We can start with the Muslims. Their greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and 
can't handle criticism or mockery at all. A smart move would be to deliberately provoke 
Muslims as much as humanly possible. The more they rage and rant and threaten, the more 
they will discredit the ones who said it was a good idea to let them into our countries and that 
everybody who said otherwise were "racists." 


One possibility is to simply demonstrate that the welfare state is no longer able to provide 
"security" to non-Muslim citizens. Every time somebody gets death threats from Islamic 
Jihadists, or Muslims burn cars and tires in the streets, it displays the utter failure of the 
authorities to protect us, and thus the futility of paying high tax rates in order to prop up a 
system that is in reality already dead. 

The welfare state is now just a big pyramid scheme where Leftist parties take our money and 
give it to Muslim immigrants in return for voter support. The welfare state in fact provides 
insecurity, since it is used to fund the Muslim colonization of the continent. 

I want European citizens to hear our politicians say that we need Muslim immigration to fund 
the welfare state, and then in the next second see "Multicultural youths" shouting Allahu 
akbar! and throwing Molotov cocktails at the fire brigades in Paris, Birmingham, Rotterdam 
or wherever. There you go: Your future pensions, ladies and gentlemen. 

Bottom line is: Our political elites are either lying to us or lying to themselves, and in both 
cases they are unfit to run our affairs. Westerners "need" Muslim immigration just like we 
"need" a hole in the head, which is incidentally what we may end up with. 

Our most serious underlying problems cannot be solved by immigration. Immigration may 
actually worsen the low indigenous birth rates, because it breaks down cultural confidence 
and thus the desire to have children if it feels like our countries don't have a future. 

I've heard the term "Europhobe" being used of those who criticize the European Union. EU 
officials are busy rewriting our history books to insert Islam as a "natural part of European 
culture," despite the fact much of the history of Europe since Charles Martel in the 8th 
century has been about defending the continent against Islam. The real "Europhobes," those 
who hate or fear Europe, are those who run the EU, not those who are against it. 

I find it personally insulting that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels should be allowed to 
define what constitutes Europe or European values. The EU is in reality the anti-European 
Union, since it is selling out the continent to our sworn enemies. It needs to go. 

I've heard people say they are afraid that if the EU collapses, we might see a resurgence of 
aggressive nationalism. Frankly, I can't totally discount the possibility. But we can't think like 
that right now. This is now a matter of survival. 

It's like saying that you won't have surgery that is needed to save your life because there's a 
possibility that you may get an infection later. In the choice between certain death now and 
possible problems at some point in the future, I take possible problems later. 

A period of turbulence can be reversed. Islamization never can, or at least only with extreme 
difficulty. I want to prevent Islamization at literally ANY cost. And frankly, it's ridiculous to 
worry that the collapse of the EU might lead to fanaticism. The EU is facilitating fanaticism 
in the form of sharia and neo-barbarism in Europe right now. 

The EU is bad for at least three reasons. First, because many of the EU elites are deliberately 
trying to create a common entity with the Arab world. Second, because the process of creating 
a pan-European federation has led to suppressing all traditional cultural, religious and national 
instincts that protected Europe from Islam before. And third, because the borderless nature of 
the EU makes both legal and illegal migration of Muslims more difficult to control from a 
practical point of view. 


We could perhaps use NATO to control potential nationalist extremists. During the Cold War, 
Western European countries had a common enemy, which helped curtail national rivalries. 
Maybe we could do the same now, by creating a common front against Islamic aggression. 
But Americans should insist that Europeans ditch the welfare state to pay for decent militaries. 
The Americans have succeeded almost too well in pacifying parts of Europe after WW2, and 
may have killed Western Europe with kindness. 

Unfortunately, most Europeans have never even heard of the term Eurabia. That's why I 
decided to write the Eurabia Code and post it online, to give my small contribution towards 
exposing this betrayal. I simply refuse to accept that the battle is already lost. Individuals 
matter. Willpower wins wars. 

We are dealing with psychological warfare, first and foremost. Relatively few people have 
actually been killed so far. Muslims are adept at psychological warfare, let's give them credit 
for that. And right now the momentum is in their favor. That's why we need some symbolic 
event that signals that the tide is turning, and we need to create a positive vision of how this 
post-Eurabian Europe will look like. Hope is important, and Europe now suffers from a lack 
of hope. Yes, the current political paradigm of liber-liberalism and the Multicultural welfare 
state is dead, it just hasn't been officially announced yet. But that doesn't have to mean that 
Europe is dead. 

I'm tired of hearing about how something is inevitable. That's why we ended up in this mess 
in the first place, by listening to the mantra that Multiculturalism was inevitable, that mass 
immigration was inevitable, that Euro-integration was inevitable etc. It was all lies. Europe 
still has the means to win this, the question is whether she has the will. 

We have grown weak, complacent and pathetic and will have to reassert own identity if we 
want to survive. Maybe is some strange way, Western Europe needs to go through her own 
period of colonization and de-colonization to move on and leave the colonial period behind. 
There are now probably more Algerians in France than there ever were Frenchmen in Algeria. 
Surely, if it could be called "national liberation" and "de-colonization" when the French were 
kicked out of Algeria, the same rules should apply if the French were to kick Algerians out of 
France? Or what about Pakistanis out of Britain? 

Is that racist, you say? Well, Leftists always hail any struggle for self-determination for 
indigenous people against colonialist aggression. Then they wouldn't mind if Europeans were 
to exercise this right, too? Or do we detect a double standard saying that indigenous people 
have the right to self-preservation, unless the indigenous people happen to be white? That 
would be racist, wouldn't it? 


The background of multiculturalism 

Thursday, November 16, 2006 

This post is a continuation of two of Fjordman s previous posts on Multiculturalism and Political 
Correctness . 

I've been trying to analyze the roots of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. The conclusion 
I've come up with so far is that it needs to be understood as a combination of forces and influences, 
different but not mutually exclusive. 

One view is that Multiculturalism "just happened," an accidental result of technological 
globalization. Although global migration pressures and modern communications definitely 
contributed, this thesis is, in my view, almost certainly too simplistic. There is mounting evidence 
that Multiculturalism was deliberately encouraged by various groups. If anything, it is an indirect 
result of globalization through multinational corporations and the creation of an international 
political elite whose mutual loyalty increasingly supersedes national interests. 

I've heard some commentators say that all the most destructive ideologies of the modern era have 
originated in Europe. But frankly, I'm wondering whether Multiculturalism is the one stupid idea 
that was actually exported from the United States to Europe. Danish writer Lars Hedegaard claims 
Multiculturalism comes from the United States following the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. 
After thinking about it, I find this to be a plausible explanation. 

Perhaps Multiculturalism partly is an anti-European ideology, with the United States - and later 
Canada, Australia and New Zealand - distancing themselves from their European heritage, whereas 
Europe has distanced itself from itself. I noticed on one conservative American blog that it was 
perfectly permissible to trash European culture in any way possible, but when I carefully asked 
some questions about whether the cultural impact of massive Latin American immigration would be 
exclusively beneficial, I was accused of being "racist." 

Some readers of my essays have suggested that Multiculturalism originated in Canada. Author 
Claire Berlinski even believes that it was invented in Switzerland. But, with all due respect, the 
impact of Swiss or Canadian cultural influences abroad has been rather limited. The United States, 
however, has exerted powerful cultural influence all over the world since WW2, and has been in the 
position to export such an ideology. 

The Civil Rights movement took place against a backdrop of a Western youth rebellion with 
Marxist influences. Although Multiculturalism may not be directly rooted in Marxist teachings, 
which helps explain why it has received support by some right-wingers, its anti-Western attitudes 
and radical Egalitarianism are at least compatible with ideas of forced equality, and aspects of 
Multiculturalism are sufficiently similar to Marxism to explain why its most ardent supporters are 
left-wingers, and why Political Correctness, the soft-totalitarian form of censorship employed to 
enforce Multiculturalism, is so appealing to them. 

If we postulate that Multiculturalism and Political Correctness were initially born out of a Western 
loss of cultural confidence, but have since been largely utilized by the Western Left, this would 
explain why it exists all over the Western world, but strongest in Western Europe, which has had a 
more powerful Marxist influence and a greater historic loss of self-esteem than the USA. It would 


explain why Eastern Europeans, who have just experienced decades of Marxist indoctrination, are 
somewhat more resistant to it than are Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans have also been much 
less exposed to the Eurabians of the European Union, who champion Multiculturalism for their own 

The best summary I can come up with thus looks something like this: Multiculturalism originated in 
the United States during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, which triggered a complete re- 
thinking of American cultural identity in favor of repudiating the European aspects of its heritage to 
transform into a "universal" nation. Multiculturalism was exported to the rest of the Western world 
through American cultural influence, and was picked up by a Western Europe, still with deep 
emotional scars following its near self-destruction during two world wars, which was then in the 
process of leaving its colonies and suffered from a post-colonial guilt complex and the identity 
crisis associated with this. 

Multiculturalism thus originally had its roots in a cultural identity crisis in the West, but it was 
quickly expropriated by groups with their own agendas. This period, the 1960s and 70s, was also 
the birth of the Western Cultural Revolution, a hippie youth rebellion against the established 
Western culture and institutions that was deeply influenced by Marxist-inspired ideologies. The 
anti-Western component in Multiculturalism suited them just fine. Following the end of the Cold 
War in the late 1980s and early 90s, when economic Marxism suffered a blow in credibility 
although it didn't die, larger segments of the Western political Left switched to Multiculturalism 
and mass immigration as their political life insurance, and wielded the censorship of Political 
Correctness and "anti-racism" as an ideological club to beat their opponents and continue 
undermining Western institutions. 

On top of the Marxist influences, in Western Europe we had another groups of Euro-federalists and 
Eurabians, with a different but overlapping goal of breaking down the national cultures through the 
promotion of Multiculturalism in favor of a new, artificial identity. The process of globalization 
didn't create these impulses of Western self-loathing, as indicated by the fact that non- Western 
countries such as Japan have not been overwhelmed by immigration to the same extent as the West, 
but it reinforced some of them. 

Technological globalization has increased migration pressures to unprecedented levels, but it has 
also enabled a global political and economic elite of individuals, including some centrists and right- 
wingers, who no longer feel any close attachment to their countries, but mainly to the international 
elites who provide them with career opportunities. 

These centrists, rightists and Big Business supporters may not be as actively hostile to Western 
culture as some left-wingers are, but they don't do anything to uphold it, either, and use 
Multiculturalism to hide the fact that they have lost or abandoned control over national borders. 
Globalization has thus simultaneously created more migration and less political will to control 

The combination of all of these factors, in addition to the resurgence of a global Islamic Jihad, is 
gradually creating a demographic and democratic crisis in the West. Many Westerners sense that 
their media and their politicians are no longer listening to them, and they are perfectly correct. 
Those who feel a loyalty to their culture and their nation states feel betrayed, because they are. 


Why the future may not belong to islam 

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 

Canadian writer Mark Steyn thinks " The future belongs to Islam. " The main reason for this, 
according to him, is demography, with massive population growth in Islamic countries and low 
birth rates in infidel nations. He makes some assertions I agree with, such as that big government is 
a national security threat since "it increases your vulnerability to threats like Islamism, and makes it 
less likely you'll be able to summon the will to rebuff it." 

According to Steyn, "Four years into the 'war on terror,' the Bush administration began promoting a 
new formulation: 'the long war.' Not a good sign. In a short war, put your money on tanks and 
bombs. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower." 

Critics would claim that Mr. Steyn isn't contributing to maintaining Western willpower by 
suggesting that we've already lost. Still, I shouldn't be too hard on him. The Canadian Council on 
American-Islamic Relations denounced his article as "Islamophobic, inflammatory and offensive." 
If CAIR dislikes you, you know you must be doing something right. 

But he makes other assertions I strongly disagree with, such as indicating that the United States 
should remain in Iraq to spread democracy: "What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, 
responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a 
guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported 

Here, Mark Steyn is wrong, which indicates that he doesn't fully understand Islam. The entire 
project of "spreading democracy" was a mistake from the very beginning, because democracy 
cannot be exported to an Islamic country such as Iraq. It is stupidity to waste hundreds of billions of 
dollars on Muslims while Islamization continues apace in the West. 

Steyn also does not fully understand the issue of demography. Islamic countries are parasitical. 
Even the massive population growth is only an advantage as long as Muslims are allowed to export 
it to infidel lands. Deprived of this opportunity, and of Western aid, the Islamic world would quickly 
sink into a quagmire of overpopulation. This is a long-term solution, to demonstrate to Muslims the 
failure of Islam. 

According to Srdja Trifkovic , the author of Defeating Jihad , "The tangible cost of the presence of a 
Muslim man, woman and child to the American taxpayer is at least $100,000 each year. The cost of 
the general unpleasantness associated with the terrorist threat and its impact on the quality of our 
lives is, of course, incalculable. (...) There is a direct, empirically verifiable correlation between the 
percentage of Muslims in a country and the increase of terrorist violence in that country (not to 
mention the general decline in the quality of life and civilized discourse)." 

Sooner or later, we have to deal with the implications of this fact. The best way to deal with the 
Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible . We should completely stop Muslim 
immigration. This could be done in indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations known 
to be engaged in terrorism. All Muslim non-citizens in the West should be removed. We should also 
change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of 
"infidels" etc should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin. 

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens 
should be forced to accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done 


in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow 
Islamic public calls to prayer as this is offensive to other faiths. Both boys and girls should take part 
in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in 
public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies 
and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to 
eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in 
Western media or universities. 

It is conceivable that some infidel nations will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 
1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth 
column. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad 
Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of Europe's 
Muslim population now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans. 

Is that racism and Fascism you say? Muslims themselves in poll after poll state that their loyalty lies 
with the Islamic Umma, not with the country they live in. "I'm a Muslim living in Britain, I'm not 
British" is the sentiment. Well, if Muslims themselves state that their citizenship is not worth the 
paper it is printed upon, why not take their word for it? 

David Selbourne, author of The Losing Battle with Islam thinks that "Islam's swift progress is 
easily explained. For the West — but not China or India — is as politically and ideologically weak 
as the world of Islam is strong. The West is handicapped by many factors: its over-benign 
liberalism, the lost moral status of the Christian faith, the vacillations of its judiciaries and the 
incoherence of their judgments, political and military hesitations over strategy and tactics, poor 
intelligence (in both senses), and the complicities of the 'Left'." 

Can the West defeat the Islamic threat? Selbourne states ten reasons why not , including the extent of 
political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot, the confusion of Leftist 
"progressives" about the Islamic advance, anti-Americanism and the vicarious satisfaction felt by 
many non-Muslims at America's reverses, as well as the West's dependency on the oil and material 
resources of Arab and Muslim countries. 

According to him, Islam will not be defeated because "the strengths of the world community of 
Muslims are being underestimated." Yet another indication that Islam's advance will continue lies in 
"the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the 
'electronic jihad'" 

I agree with him that the cultural weakness of the West is a major disadvantage, and has been one 
important reason behind the recent resurgence of Jihad. It was never inevitable that we allowed 
millions of Muslims to settle in our lands. This was the result of Multiculturalism and the 
weakening of our cultural identity, and in Europe with the deliberate help of Eurabians. 

The impact of globalization and modern mass media is more complicated and has contradictory 
results. As one pundit at ex-Muslim Ali Sina's website put it: "Rituals are important as 
brainwashing tools to instill discipline and loyalty. Islam's focus on rituals remind me of the rituals 
in the military. (...) But what worked well for a medieval war machine is disastrous for Muslims in 
the modern world. The Arab war machine was supported by the blind obedience, brotherhood, 
courage, hatred and high birth rates inspired by Islam. (...) But these same qualities are handicaps 
for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Today they lead to poverty, belligerency, war and defeat." 

Islam was perfect for medieval warfare, but gradually lost out to the West, especially after the 
Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, which could never have taken place in Islamic lands because 


of their lack of freedom and their cult of authority. Ironically, history has now gone full circle. 
Muslims are still useless in developing anything new, but as a result of migration, modern 
communications, the presence of Muslims in infidel lands and Arab oil revenues, they can more 
readily buy or expropriate technology from others. The Iranian Revolution was aided by audio 
cassettes of speeches by the Ayatollah Khomeini. 

In the book The West and the Rest : Globalization and the Terrorist Threat, Roger Scruton argues 
that globalization "offers militant Islam the opportunity that it has lacked since the Ottoman retreat 
from central Europe." It has created "a true Islamic umma, which identifies itself across borders in 
terms of a global form of legitimacy, and which attaches itself like a parasite to global institutions 
and techniques that are the by-products of Western democracy." 

The "techniques and infrastructure on which al Qaeda depends are the gifts of the new global 
institutions. It is Wall Street and Zurich that produced the network of international finance that 
enables Osama bin Laden to conceal his wealth and to deploy it anywhere in the world. It is 
Western enterprise with its multinational outreach that produced the technology that bin Laden has 
exploited so effectively against us. And it is Western science that developed the weapons of mass 
destruction he would dearly like to obtain. His wealth, too, would be inconceivable without the vast 
oil revenues brought to Saudi Arabia from the West, there to precipitate the building boom from 
which his father profited." 

While Scruton gives some support to the idea that the Internet and modern communications 
technology have strengthened Islam, there are some contradictory views worth listening to. 

Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "Islam has nothing whatever to say to the modern world," and 
states that "Personally, I believe that all forms of Islam are very vulnerable in the modern world to 
rational criticism, which is why the Islamists are so ferocious in trying to suppress such criticism. 
They have instinctively understood that Islam itself, while strong, is exceedingly brittle, as 
communism once was. They understand that, at the present time in human history, it is all or 
nothing. (...) Islamism is a last gasp, not a renaissance, of the religion; but, as anyone who has 
watched a person die will attest, last gasps can last a surprisingly long time." 

Although some of the tensions we are seeing now are caused by Western cultural weakness, part of 
it is also related to the impersonal forces of technological globalization. Previously, Muslims and 
non-Muslims could for the most part ignore each other on a daily basis. This is no longer possible, 
because Muslims see the Western world on TV every day. And if somebody in, say, Denmark says 
something "insulting" about Muhammad — which in the 19th century would have gone unnoticed 
in Pakistan or Egypt — thanks to email, mobile phones and satellite TV, millions of Muslims will 
know about it within hours. However, this can potentially be good for non-Muslims. 

Contrary to what Selbourne claims, the Internet has in fact emerged as an important, perhaps crucial 
factor in the Western resistance, as author Bruce Bawer has noticed: "Thank God for the [InterJNet. 
I tremble at the thought of all the things that have happened during the past years that I would never 
have known about without it. The bloggers have in some cases reported about things that the 
mainstream media has left out, and in other cases pointed out omissions and distortions in the media 
coverage. Frequently, the mass media has felt compelled by the bloggers to pay attention to stories 
they would otherwise have ignored. The blogosphere is a fantastic way to spread news. If an 
important event has been reported in just a single, insignificant local paper, one blogger somewhere 
will have written about it, other bloggers will have linked to him etc. so that the news story is 
passed on to blog readers around the world. If Europe is saved, it will be because of the Internet." 

Columnist Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post praises the blogosphere and states that: "The 


responsibility of protecting our nations and societies from internal disintegration has passed to the 
hands of individuals, often working alone, who refuse to accept the degradation of their societies 
and so fight with the innovative tools of liberty to protect our way of life." 

J.R.R. Tolkien's epic tale the Lord of the Rings is a story about the little people, the Hobbits, saving 
the day in the end. The most powerful enemy within in Tolkien's story is the wizard Saruman. In the 
West now, Saruman corresponds to a whole class of people in politics, the media and academia. The 
Sarumans of the West are met with resistance from thousands of little hobbits in cyberspace, and 
they don't like it. Pessimists claim that this era is merely the Wild West period of the Internet, which 
will gradually become tamed and censored. That is possible, but even if events should turn out that 
way, the Internet will still have given an important contribution to the Western resistance of our 

Seaborne believes that many people are underestimating the strength of Islam. Perhaps, but some 
observers, including Mark Steyn and Mr. Seaborne himself, may be overestimating it. They 
overlook the fact that Islam has many weaknesses, too. Don't underestimate your enemy. Muslims 
should be credited for making clever use of our weaknesses, but this "we're all doomed and have 
already lost" theme is overblown. 

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world. I'm not saying that containment 
is all that we will ever need to do, but it is the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread 
of nuclear weapons technology, the darkest side of globalization, will trigger a large-scale war with 
the Islamic world at some point. The only way to avoid this is to take steps, including military ones, 
to deprive Muslims of such technology. 

We should restrain their ability to hurt us physically. We can't prevent it completely, but we should 
limit it as much as possible. Muslims try to wear us down through terrorism. They should be worn 
down through mockery and criticism. We should also make clear that for every Islamic terror attack 
we will increase these efforts, which Muslims fear more than our weapons. It's the new balance of 

Dr Koenraad Elst , one of Belgium's best orientalists, thinks "Islam is in decline, despite its 
impressive demographic and military surge" - which according to Dr Elst is merely a "last 
upheaval." He acknowledges, however, that this decline can take some time (at least in terms of the 
individual human life span) and that it is possible that Islam will succeed in becoming the majority 
religion in Europe before collapsing. 

Dalrymple is probably correct when he says that Islam is an "all or nothing" religion which cannot 
be secularized. The future may not belong to Islam, as Mark Steyn suggests. It is conceivable that 
Islam in some generations will cease to be a global force of any significance, but in the meantime it 
will be a constant source of danger to its neighbors, from Europe through India to Southeast Asia. 
The good news is that Islam may not be able to achieve the world dominance it desires. The bad 
news is that it may be able to achieve a world war. We can only cage it as much as possible and try 
to prevent this from happening. 


How the West Was Lost 

Mon, 2006-12-04 15:53 

Is Islam compatible with democracy? This is a question I address elsewhere . We also have to ask 
ourselves, however, whether the conditions needed for a properly functioning democratic system 
are currently present even in the West. I'm not always sure about that. In a functioning democratic 
state, the state passes laws in accordance with the wishes of the people, and also strives to uphold 
these laws. In Western Europe in particular, the state does neither, as most laws are passed by 
unelected EU bureaucrats and not elected national parliaments, and as the streets are increasingly 
ruled by gangs and criminals. 

When Arne Hjemaas from Fauske in Norway discovered who was behind a series of burglaries in 
August and September, he gave the information to the police. "We knew where the burglar was and 
where the stolen goods were. He had stolen so much from us and from other firms that he had hired 
a garage to store everything," Hjemaas said, but the police did nothing. 

Finally, Hjemaas and his brother decided to pick up the goods and hand the burglar over to the 
police. "Unfortunately, it ended in a fight. The man was armed and aggressive. This is not stated in 
the police documents. The police have documented the burglar's bruises, but not mine. Our actions 
led to recovering stolen goods for us and others." Later, Hjemaas was told that the man was 
supposed to be apprehended the day before, but the officer who had been assigned the mission had 
to attend a funeral. Now, Hjemaas is about to be prosecuted for violence and risks four months in 

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he 
was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost . I don't 
agree with everything Boot says. He places a lot of emphasis on the importance of religion, which is 
fine, but I disagree with his criticism of post-Enlightenment civilization in general. Still, he is 
articulate and original, which makes him worth reading anyway: 

"Parliaments all over the world are churning out laws by the bucketful. Yet, they fail to 
protect citizens so spectacularly that one is tempted to think that this is not their real 
purpose. [...] Governments are no longer there to protect society and the individuals 
within it. [...] For that reason a crime committed by one individual against another is of 
little consequence to them." 

The law also increasingly denies citizens the right to protect themselves and their property, with the 
United States as an important exception, at least for now. This despite the fact that Switzerland, with 
the heaviest-armed population in the world, has low crime rates. In the first two years after a 
complete ban on handguns was introduced in Britain, gun crime went up 50 per cent and is still 

According to Boot, 

"While killing is still frowned upon, other violent crimes, including assault and even 
attempted murder, often go not only unpunished but even unprosecuted in many 
Western countries. Unless, of course, they are committed in self-defence, something the 
state abhors as this diminishes its control over the life and property of its subjects. [...] 
The burglar is in the same business as the state: redistributing wealth. Burglary is a form 
of income tax, and the burglar merely collects the excess that has evaded the tax 
collector' net. [...] A burglar is a victim, not a criminal, grew up needy and 
downtrodden, we, society at large, are to blame for his plight." 


Citizens no longer respect laws because they know the state does not do so either. According to 
Boot, this is caused by the loss of religion: 

"Without God laws are arbitrary and can fall prey either to evil design or ill-conceived 
political expediency, which is another way of saying that without God law is tyranny 
[. . .] Religion, for all the misdeeds committed by it or in its name, was the foundation on 
which Western culture and civilization had been erected. Destroy the foundation, and 
down comes the whole structure with a big thud. [...] The unsavoury Spanish 
inquisitors, for example, are variously estimated to have carried out between 10,000 and 
30,000 executions during the three-and-a-half centuries they were in business." 

That's pretty bad, but still not more than a monthly output in your average Socialist regime. And 
Alexander Boot does not buy into the excuse that Marxism has been misunderstood: 

"Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial 
conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first 
place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or 
manufactory. [...] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. [...] Marx ideals are 
unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite 
managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the 
[Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes 
the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin's Russia of the 
1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in 
private hands [...] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a 
humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women 
becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite 
managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted 
Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it." 

Boot also has some critical words about the Western political system, especially since he believes 
that the loyalty of Western political elites "is pledged to the international elite that increasingly 
supersedes national interests." 

"The word 'democracy' in both Greece and Rome had no one man one vote 
implications and Plato used it in the meaning of 'mob rule.' The American founding 
fathers never used it at all and neither did Lincoln. [...] a freely voting French citizen or 
British subject of today has every aspect of his life controlled, or at least monitored, by 
a central government in whose actions he has little say. He meekly hands over half his 
income knowing the only result of this transfer will be an increase in the state's power 
to extort even more. [...] He opens his paper to find yet again that the 'democratic' state 
has dealt him a blow, be that of destroying his children's education, raising his taxes, 
devastating the army that protects him, closing his local hospital or letting murderers go 
free. In short, if one defines liberty as a condition that best enables the individual to 
exercise his freedom of choice, then democracy of universal suffrage is remiss on that 

He believes that democracy, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has 
been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word. The 
impulse behind Political Correctness consists of twisting the language we use, enforcing new words 
or changing the meaning of old ones, turning them into "weapons of crowd control" by demonizing 
those who fail to comply with the new definitions. Glossocracy depends upon a long-term 
investment in ignorance. 

"Like the Russian intelligentsia of yesteryear, the glossocratic intelligentsia of today's 


West is busily uprooting the last remaining vestiges of Westernness. The press is one 
gardening implement they use; education is another." 

One example of how language is power is given in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis 

'"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just 
what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether 
you can make words mean different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 
'which is to be master - that's all.'" 

According to Boot, 

"A semi-literate population is a soft touch for glossocratic Humpty Dumpties insisting 
that words mean whatever they want them to mean. [...] Laws against racism are 
therefore not even meant to punish criminal acts. They are on the books to reassert the 
power of the state to control not just the citizens' actions but, more important, their 
thoughts and the words they use to get these across. [...] It is relatively safe to predict 
that, over the next ten years, more and more people in Western Europe and North 
America will be sent to prison not for something they have done, but for something they 
have said. That stands to reason: a dictator whose power is based on the bullet is most 
scared of bullets; a glossocrat whose power is based on words is most scared of words. 
At the same time, real crime is going to increase. [.. .] A state capable of prosecuting one 
person for his thoughts is equally capable of prosecuting thousands, and will predictably 
do so when it has consolidated its power enough to get away with any outrage." 

This is unfortunately already happening. In Canada, Mark Harding was sentenced to 340 hours of 
community service slash indoctrination under the direction of Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary 
of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ontario. Ashraf made it clear that during 
the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam. "He said he was my supervisor, and if I 
didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail," recounted Harding. 

Harding was convicted because of a June 1997 incident in which he distributed pamphlets outside a 
public high school in Toronto, listing atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his 
assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims. The pamphlet said: "The Muslims who 
commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here" and that "Toronto is 
definitely on their hit list." 

Harding stated that after his case became public, he no longer felt safe, due to threats from Muslims. 
When he entered court for his trial, a large crowd of Muslims chanted "Infidels, you will burn in 
hell." Judge Sidney B. Linden's 1998 ruling against Harding was based on Canada's hate-crimes 
law. The judge determined he was guilty of "false allegations about the adherents of Islam 
calculated to arouse fear and hatred of them in all non-Muslim people." 

In June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of Muslim men suspected of planning terror attacks 
against various targets including the Toronto subway, and possibly of beheading Canadian 
Conservative, pro-Israeli PM Stephen Harper. An intelligence study warned that a "high percentage 
' of Canadian Muslims involved in extremist activities were born in Canada. 

In Britain, after Nick Griffin , the leader of the British National Party, was cleared for stirring up 
racial hatred by calling Islam "a wicked, vicious faith." Gordon Brown, by many considered PM 
Tony Blair's likely successor, immediately pledged to strengthen hate speech laws: "I think any 
preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country and I think we 
have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes." 

The issue here is not whether you agree with the BNP, the issue is that a politicized police force is 


used on behalf of the Labour government to harass political rivals and silence critics of their 
Muslim voters. Moreover, at the same time as the state is using legal harassment against critics of 
Islam, Islamic sharia laws are spreading in Britain. 

Just like in Norway, where the authorities fail to protect their citizens against criminals but 
prosecute those who do what the authorities fail to do, so in Britain the state is harassing those who 
point out the fact that the state is incapable or unwilling to uphold the laws and the borders of 
Britain. The British see this, which is probably why they are increasingly leaving. And in Canada, 
you get convicted for "racism" for making predictions about the threat posed by Muslim 
immigration that later turn out to be perfectly accurate. 

Theodore Dalrymple writes about a book entitled^ Land Fit for Criminals, written by David Fraser, 
who has served as a probation officer for more than a quarter of a century. According to Dalrymple, 

"For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if not always de jure, has 
been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals and 
criminality. [. . .] No Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid 
being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence. [...] As Fraser 
pointed out to me, the failure of the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, 
and to take seriously its duty in this regard, creates a politically dangerous situation, for 
it puts the very legitimacy of the state itself at risk. The potential consequences are 
incalculable, for the failure might bring the rule of law itself into disrepute and give an 
opportunity to the brutal and the authoritarian." 

The democratic states of the West are losing the ability to protect their citizenry, and are in some 
cases turning into enemies of their own people. That is a situation that cannot and will not last 
forever. If left unchecked, these developments could have more serious consequences than most of 
us would like to contemplate. 


Marxism or decadence? the cause of western weakness 

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 

I sometimes am criticized for being too focused on the left-wing of the political spectrum and 
ignoring the problems caused by right-wing parties. First of all, the line of separation between what 
constitutes "Left" and "Right" in politics now tends to become blurred. And second of all, only a 
fool believes that everybody on one side is always right, and everybody on the other side is always 
wrong. I have been consistent in pointing out that the European Union, which I loathe, cannot be 
explained simply as a one-sided Leftist endeavor. It also contains elements of Big Business 
interests, political corruption and the general desire of politicians and bureaucrats to rid themselves 
of the restrictions imposed on them by a democratic society. 

At the time I write this, the conservative German chancellor Angela Merkel continues to push for 
the implementation of the awful EU Constitution, and I just read a column by a free-market activist 
who champions continued mass-immigration, including from Muslim countries, because his 
ideological convictions lead him to conclude that free migration is always good and beneficial. 

It is also true that not all those who undermine Western civilization through support for 
Multiculturalism and mass immigration do so out of a hidden political agenda. Some do it out of 
plain stupidity and vanity. "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's most open-minded of them all?" It's a 
beauty contest for bored, Western intellectuals who use immigrants as a mirror to reflect their own 
inflated egos, a sport where they can nurse their vanity in the mistaken belief that denigrating your 
own cultural heritage is a sign of goodness and lack of prejudice. 

I suspect that part of the craziness on display now stems from feelings of guilt because of affluence. 
I hear so many of these open border activists talk about "solidarity," but in reality it's all about me, 
me, me. They don't show much solidarity with their own children and grandchildren who are going 
to inherit the Balkanized nightmare they leave behind. It's all about making them feel good about 
themselves right now, without regard for future consequences of their actions. So their "solidarity" 
is really an extreme form of egotism and holier-than-thou self-exaltation. Besides, many of them 
have lived sheltered lives for so long that they honestly don't understand that something bad can 
ever happen to them. They've never had to fight for their freedom or their prosperity, which had 
been ensured by others. 

So yes, there is a component of decadence, materialism, hedonism and nihilism without any specific 
ideological agenda at work here. But still, even if I try to be as objective as possible, it is difficult to 
avoid seeing that a disproportionate amount of our problems come from political left-wingers and 
that elements of it are indeed ideological. Besides, it is sometimes difficult to define where 
decadence ends and cultural Marxism begins. The Marxist-inspired "revolution" of the 1960s and 
70s, which both at the time and in hindsight has been viewed as a watershed in Western history, was 
staged by people who had enjoyed unprecedented economic growth throughout their entire lives. 

I can see no connection between Islamic terrorism and poverty, but maybe there is a connection 
between wealth and politically correct nonsense. Western Europe has enjoyed decades of affluence 
and welfare state boredom, and is crazier than any civilization before it in history, even paying its 
own enemies to colonize it and thinking happy thoughts about cultural diversity as it is being wiped 
out. Is cultural Marxism caused by boredom, which is again caused by affluence created by 
capitalism? It would be sort of ironic if that is the case. 


To quote The True Believer by Eric Hoffer: 

"The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate 
struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility The goals are concrete and 
immediate. Every meal is a fulfillment; to go to sleep on a full stomach is a triumph; and every 
windfall a miracle. What need could they have for 'an inspiring super individual goal which could 
give meaning and dignity to their lives?' They are immune to the appeal of a mass movement." 

And later Hoffer points out that "There is perhaps no more reliable indicator of a society's ripeness 
for a mass movement than the prevalence of unrelieved boredom. In almost all the descriptions of 
the periods preceding the rise of mass movements there is reference to vast ennui; and in their 
earliest stages mass movements are more likely to find sympathizers and support among the bored 
than among the exploited and oppressed." 

In The Weekly Standard , Michel Gurfinkiel notes that indeed, there are intellectuals "who relish the 
prospect of a new French Revolution, and welcome the suburban rioters as its spearhead. Nothing is 
more revealing, in this respect, than the success of a feverish political novel, Supplement au Roman 
National (A Sequel to the National Narrative), by 28-year-old author Jean-ric Boulin. Published two 
months ago, it forecasts a 'social and racial' revolution in France in 2007. First a wave of suicide 
bombings in Paris. Then martial law. Then, finally, the great rebellion of the French poor: the native 
underclass, the Arabs, and the blacks, who unite under the green flag of Islam and the tricolor of 
France and march on Paris — as a sort of Commune in reverse. Boulin gallantly supports such an 

There is, admittedly, something special about France and their love of revolts and mayhem. The 
French still haven't recovered from their great Revolution of 1789. It is strange that a modern 
nation can celebrate as their national day the birth of a bloody upheaval which paved the way for 
mass-murder and authoritarian rule. But the fascination with Islamic movements is far from limited 
to France. It is partly based on hatred of the West and a belief that the world must be "liberated" 
from Western civilization, which is the cause of global injustice. 

Norwegian author Elin Brodin wrote an essay entitled "Western values are the worst." According to 
her, "Modern Westerners are the most bigoted, self-righteous and deaf-blind creatures that have ever 
walked the earth's crust. This goes for the left-wing and the feminists just as much as for everybody 
else. We really have to change our attitudes, not just our clothes, because now the question is 
whether this civilization should be transformed or fall. Because the West neither can nor should 
endure in its present form." 

If you want to see a really nasty example of the hatred against Western civilization on display, 
here's a link from Danish blog Uriasposten . Thyra Hilden and Pio Diaz projected video images of 
flames onto 1,000 square-metre glass screens in a museum in the central Danish town of Aarhus. 
The "art" exhibition was called " City on Fire - Burning the roots of western culture ." The artists 
assured us that "It is not actual fire that destroys actual buildings - but the idea of fire that destroys 
the historical and ideological roots of Western culture." Part of their vision was "to create an 
aesthetic image of the deconstruction of the cultural roots of the Western world," because as they 
said, Western culture was "very aggressive," while Islamic culture has been far less so. 

Bruce Thornton writes about Robert Conquest's book Reflections on a Ravaged Century, especially 
his chapter on Soviet Myths and the Western Mind: 


"As Conquest documents, many Western intellectuals and academics were delusional about the 
reality of the communist threat. For a host of reasons — a quasi-religious faith in Utopian socialism, 
neurotic hatred of their own culture, vulnerability to an ideology that dressed itself in scientific 
garb, an adolescent romance with revolution, and sheer ignorance of the facts — many professors, 
pundits, politicians, and religious leaders refused to believe that Soviet leaders meant what they said 
about revolution and subversion." Because of this, "throughout the Cold War, the Western resolve to 
resist Soviet expansionism was undercut by 'peace' movements, nuclear disarmament movements, 
calls for detente and 'dialogue,' and claims of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Soviet 

According to Thornton, other parallels between Cold War Sovietophiles and today's rationalizers 
for Jihad present themselves. The academic establishment for most of the Cold War "was 
predisposed to leftist ideology." 

Unfortunately, the Soviet-appeasers never had to endure the consequences of their actions. In 
Norway, I heard recently several left-wingers state that Arne Treholt , a senior diplomat who was 
convicted of high treason in the 1980s for spying for the Soviet Union, was actually a 
misunderstood hero who wanted "dialogue" with the Communists. A former member of the Labor 
Party, he was reprieved by the Labor government in 1992. He has always claimed his innocence , 
but admitted later that he was both careless and negligent and "drifted into some questionable 
areas" when he turned over confidential state documents to Soviet representatives and accepted 
money for them in return. 

When US President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, after Jimmy Carter had made a mockery 
out of the presidency and his inaction contributed to the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 
1979, the massive Soviet military machinery placed medium-range SS-20 nuclear missiles to 
intimidate Western Europe and split NATO. They also encouraged massive demonstrations and 
campaigns within the West for unilateral Western disarmament. Yet Reagan chose to up the ante by 
deploying new U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe. He denounced the Soviet Union as the "Evil 
Empire" and engaged the Soviets in a military build-up that bankrupted their fragile economy. 
Reagan, who dared to challenge blackmail from one of the most brutal regimes in human history, 
was reviled and ridiculed by the leftist intelligentsia, and is still hated even a generation after the 
Cold War ended. Yet a man such as Mr. Treholt, who appeased the same regime, is viewed in 
positive terms. 

Sadly, conservatives demsontrated negligence after the Cold War. We never properly denounced 
Marxism as an ideology as well as discredited those individuals who had supported it, the way it 
was done with Fascism after WW2. That was a mistake. We had a massive fifth column of left- 
wingers during the Cold War who sapped our strength and appeased our enemies. These very same 
groups have been allowed to continue their work uninterrupted, and went straight from appeasing 
Soviet Communism to appeasing Islamic Jihad. 

The book The Seventh War , by Israeli journalists Avi Yisacharov and Amos Harel, is based on 
interviews with Hamas Islamic terrorist leaders in Gaza and Israeli prisons. Hamas leaders told 
them clearly: "It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue 
with our suicide attacks. We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within 
Israeli society, and the left-wing's reaction was proof that this was indeed the right approach." 

The West and Westerners in general are treated as the "global oppressive class" by our Marxist- 
inspired academic elites. From historical experience, in Socialist societies, those deemed a part of 
the "oppressive class" have at best been deprived of their property, at worst been physically 
eliminated. Western Leftists really believe their own rhetoric about the West being the cause of most 


of the problems of the world, and want to "liberate" the planet by bringing down the oppressive 
class, aka the West. 

We could go into long debates as to whether this is compatible with the doctrines of classical 
Marxism, since most Islamic and Third World nations are far from industrialized. It is true that Karl 
Marx initially stated that capitalism was a necessary transitional stage for Socialism. Most Socialists 
before WW1 believed that the Marxist revolution would start in Germany, precisely because it was 
a more advanced capitalist and industrialized economy. But Lenin decided to start in Russia after 
the opportunity provided by the first revolution in 1917, despite the fact that it was far from a 
developed capitalist economy at that point. Marxist strategies have thus changed considerably 
during the past century. By far the one element that has remained most consistent is the tendency to 
view society primarily in economic terms, through the prism of groups exploiting other groups. In 
general, Marxist tools for analysis have survived far better than their practical solutions and are still 

It is, in my view, impossible to understand Multiculturalism without taking into account this 
profound influence of Marxist thinking. Marxism states that culture is only of minor or secondary 
importance, while the primary moving factor is the struggle between the oppressed and the 
oppressors. This leads to treating cultural differences as insignificant, and thus the conclusion that 
major differences in performance between groups are caused by poverty and exploitation. This is 
exactly the picture we are presented by our media as the source of the difficulties in the Islamic 

Moreover, the very idea that it is ok to stage massive and risky social experiments involving 
millions of people is one that was passed on from Marxism to Multiculturalism. As Friedrich von 
Hayek warned: "We must shed the illusion that we can deliberately 'create the future of mankind.' 
This is the final conclusion of the forty years which I have now devoted to the study of these 

The Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, with such thinkers as Antonio Gramsci and Georg 
Lukacs, aimed at overthrowing capitalist rule by undermining the hegemonic culture. According to 
Gramsci, the Socialist revolution, which failed to spread following the Russian Revolution in 1917, 
could never take place until people were liberated from Western culture, and particularly from their 
"Christian soul." As Lukacs said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" This 
could be done through breaking down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and family patterns and 
undermining the established institutions from within. In 2007, we can see clearly that this strategy 
has been quite successful in Western media and academia, which are not only neutral or lukewarm 
in defending our civilization, but are in many cases actively aiding our enemies. The irony is that 
most Westerners have never heard of Gramsci, yet ideas similar to his have had a huge impact on 
their lives. 

In Scandinavia, it is a well-documented fact that journalists are much more left-leaning than the 
general populace. In France during the Muslim riots in 2005, several journalists stated openly that 
they downplayed the problems caused by immigrants in order not to boost the support for "right- 
wing parties," and in Britain, leading figures from the BBC readily admitted that they actively 
champion Multiculturalism in their coverage. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, himself from 
the Labour Party, complained in the January 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine about relations 
with Muslims that "many in Western countries listen to the propaganda of the extremists and accept 
it. (And to give credit where it is due, the extremists play our own media with a shrewdness that 
would be the envy of many a political party)" 


Daniel Pipes notes that "Significant elements in several Western countries - especially the United 
States, Great Britain, and Israel - believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see 
terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This 'we have met the enemy and he is us' attitude 
replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and 
achievements. Osama bin Laden celebrates by name such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. 
Self-hating Westerners have an out-sized importance due to their prominent role as shapers of 
opinion in universities, the media, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' 
auxiliary mujahideen." 

Pipes warns that "Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical 
Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses 
will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the 
threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have 
been. Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, but instead stick to the lawful, 
political, non-violent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will 
stop them." 

In short: You know you live in a Western country when the media is cheering for your enemies, 
when your schools and universities teach your children that your civilization is evil and when your 
politicians think it's a sign of "extremism" if you want to protect your nation's borders. 

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once said that "Peace will come when the Arabs love their 
children more than they hate us." Perhaps we will win this struggle for liberty only when Western 
left-wingers decide that love their children more than they hate Western civilization. If they have 
children in the first place, that is. 


How Feminism Leads to the Oppression of Women 

Thu, 2007-02-15 23:18 

According to Heather MacDonald , the feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The university is 
about to name as its new president radical feminist Drew Gilpin Faust, following Lawrence 
Summers's all- too-brief reign. Summers's recklessly honest speculations about women in science 
strengthened the feminist hold on faculty hiring and promotions. The Task Force won a $50 million 
commitment to increase faculty "diversity efforts" at Harvard. 

As University President, Lawrence Summers in 2005 gave a speech where he dared to suggest that 
innate differences between men and women could explain why men hold more seats as top 
scientists than women. This is a plausible thesis. According to Dr Paul Irwing at Manchester 
University, there are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, and 30 times as 
many with an IQ of 170-plus. There are other studies that indicate similar, disproportionate numbers 
of men among those with extremely high intelligence. 

Besides, even though Summers may have been wrong, it is dangerous to embark on a road where 
important issues are not debated at all. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization has been our 
thirst for asking questions about everything. Political Correctness is thus anti-Western both in its 
form and in its intent. It should be noted that in this case, feminists formed the vanguard of PC , the 
same ideology that has blinded our universities to the Islamic threat. 

It makes it even worse when we know that other feminists in academia assert that the veil, or even 
the burka, represents "an alternative feminism." Dr. Wairimu Njambi is an Assistant Professor of 
"Women's Studies" at the Florida Atlantic University. Much of her scholarship is dedicated to 
advancing the notion that the cruel practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is actually a 
triumph for Feminism and that it is hateful to suggest otherwise. According to Njambi "anti-FGM 
discourse perpetuates a colonialist assumption by universalizing a particular western image of a 
'normal' body and sexuality." 

Harvard university recently received a $20 million donation from Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin 
Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, to finance Islamic studies. This will no 
doubt be used to influence the curriculum to make it friendlier and less "Islamophobic." Senior 
Western institutions for higher education such as Harvard are thus simultaneously serving as outlets 
for Saudi Islamic propaganda and for left-wing radical feminists. This may on the surface look like 
quite a paradox, but in different ways both groups discredit traditional Western culture by 
highlighting its "history of oppression and injustice," and they both stifle ideological dissent and 
suppress criticism of their holy doctrines. Perhaps feminists failed to listen to fellow Harvard 
Professor Charles Fried, who has warned that "The greatest enemy of liberty has always been some 
vision of the good." 

Feminism has hurt us by encouraging public accept for intellectual hypocrisy, which later paved the 
way for Islamic infiltration. The official mantra is that men and women are not just equal but 
identical, but at the same time that women are also somehow superior. Both of these claims cannot, 
logically speaking, be true at the same time, yet both are being made simultaneously. This gross 
double standard closely mirrors that of Multiculturalism, where all cultures are equal but Western 
culture is inferior and evil. 


This is a technique labelled Repressive Tolerance by the cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse in 1965. 
Briefly speaking, those who are deemed to belong to "dominant" groups of society should have 
their freedom of speech suppressed by progressives and radicals, and simply be denied access to 
discussion forums, in order to rectify the "institutional oppression" in society Marcuse's ideas had a 
huge impact in the 1960s and 70s. He also advocated free sex without any constraints as a method 
of freeing people from religious morality. 

Prof Bernard Lewis warned in The Jerusalem Post that Islam could soon be the dominant force in a 
Europe "Europeans are losing their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their 
own culture" and have "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self- 
abasement and political correctness." Although Mr. Lewis did not say so, this is to a significant 
extent the result of decades of demonization by left-wing academics, including radical feminists. 
The goal of radical feminism was never about equality between the sexes, it was about the 
destruction of the nuclear family and of the power structures of society in general. 

As Ellen Willis, self-proclaimed democratic socialist and founder of Redstockings, a radical 
feminist group from 1969, stated to left-wing The Nation in 1981: "Feminism is not just an issue or 
a group of issues, it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. [...] The 
objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion [...] to child-care programs, is to undermine 
traditional family values." Feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir stated that "no woman should be 
authorized to stay at home to raise her children [...] because if there is such a choice, too many 
women will make that one." 

Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their 
way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and 
demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by. . . Islam. And feminists still aren't 

Toy researcher Anders Nelson at Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology has warned that toys have 
become increasingly gender- segregated over the past fifteen years: "People often explain [their toy 
purchases] by saying that boys and girls want different things. But in order for children to be able to 
reflect on [the toys] they receive, adults have to open their eyes to [inherent gender] structures. To 
children, these [gender] roles are more unquestioned and instinctual." Mr. Nelson encouraged 
parents to give more gender neutral Christmas presents. In other words, no Barbie dolls for girls and 
no cars for boys. This is the result of a culture destroyed by Political Correctness. 

Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax 
Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited 
that Swedish men were just like the Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan. A male columnist in 
national newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the 

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn't necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. 
The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable. 

When young politician Kjetil Vevle showed up for a meeting planning the demonstrations at that 
year's protests at the International Women's Day on 8 March in the city of Bergen, Norway, he was 
told that men didn't have voting rights at the meeting even though they were passionate feminists. 
The leaders didn't think there was any cause for complaints, as the men had generously been 
awarded the right to voice their opinion, just not the right to make decisions. 

Although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender 
equality , I have heard visitors comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere 
else in the world. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And it has no 
in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If 
people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country to find it, which is now 
easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin 


America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find 
partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is 
unmistakable. Scandinavians celebrate "gender equality" and travel to the other side of the world to 
find somebody actually worth marrying. 

Norway and Sweden are countries with extremely high divorce rates. Boys grow up in an 
atmosphere where masculinity is demonized, attend a school system where they are viewed as 
deficient girls and are told by the media that men are obsolete and will soon be rendered extinct 

A feminist culture will eventually end up being squashed, because the men have either become too 
demoralized and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become so fed-up with 
incessant ridicule that they just don't care anymore. If Western men are pigs and "just like the 
Taliban" no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more 
aggressive men from other cultures, which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. 
The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they 
were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism 
finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of 
Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women. 

I wonder whether Virginia Wolf saw this coming. Maybe if she were alive today, she would hail the 
Islamic veil as an "alternative road to feminism" and write a book called A Burka of One's Own. 
With some luck, it might even have earned her a Diversity Scholarship at Harvard. 


Why Europeans Should Support Israel 

Mon, 2007-03-12 07:49 

One of the most frustrating things to watch is the powerful anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti- 
Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe's media. Bat Ye'or 's predictions about Arab 
anti-Semitism spreading in Europe as the continent's Islamization and descent into Eurabia 
continues have so far proved depressingly accurate. This trend needs to be fought, vigorously, by all 
serious European anti-Jihadists. Not only because it is immoral and unfair to Israelis, which it is, 
but also because those who assist it are depriving Europeans of the opportunity to fully grasp the 
threat and understand the nature of the Jihad that is now targeting much of Europe as well. 

In 2005 the Norwegian police issued a mobile security alarm to Carl I. Hagen , leader of the right- 
wing Progress Party. Mr. Hagen had criticized Islam and could see no similarity with the concept of 
morality and justice found in Christianity. During the 1990s, Mr. Hagen was one of the few 
politicians who protested against giving money to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a part of the 
Norwegian-brokered Oslo Peace Process. 

Hagen said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. He felt that 
Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads into Europe. In an unprecedented step, 
a group of Muslim ambassadors to Norway blasted Carl I. Hagen in a letter to the newspaper 
Aftenposten, claiming that he had offended 1 .3 billion Muslims around the world. Other Norwegian 
politicians quickly caved in and condemned Hagen. Maybe Norway, "the country of peace" and 
home to the Nobel Peace Prize, will get along just fine with Islam, "the religion of peace." 

Although some political leaders such as Mr. Carl I. Hagen have a clear understanding of what's 
going on, they are unfortunately few and far between. Most European media commentators are 
hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, partly because they get angry with anybody defending 
themselves against Islamic Jihad instead of surrendering , and partly because they want to project 
their own feelings of guilt from the Holocaust onto Israel by recasting the Jews as villains and the 
Palestinians as victims. 

French filmmaker Pierre Rehov made the film Suicide Killers where he interviewed the families of 
Palestinian suicide bombers. He warns that we are facing "a neurosis at the level of an entire 
civilization," a "culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their 
only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God. I hear a mother 
saying 'Thank God, my son is dead.' Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a 
greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. 
[...] They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy." 

Rehov believes that we are dealing with "a new form of Nazism" that it is going to spread to Europe 
and the United States, too. 

Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez claims that Europe died in Auschwitz : "We 
assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!" Yet in 2007, 
Ciempozuelos, a small Madrid suburb, refused to commemorate Holocaust Day and opted instead 
to commemorate the 'Day of Palestinian Genocide.' In Britain following Muslim pressure, the 
Bolton Council scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day event . The Muslim Council of Britain asked 
for a Genocide Day to protest the Israeli "genocide" against the Palestinians. The secretary-general 
of the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, has earlier compared the situation of Muslims in Britain to 
Jews under Hitler. 

We thus have the absurd situation where the Nazis of today are presented as Jews while the Jews are 
presented as Nazis. 

French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of 


the European Union , a culture based on guilt. "I can understand the feeling of remorse that is 
leading Europe to this, but this remorse goes too far." It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject 
every single aspect of European culture. This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner. 

The Holocaust was an unspeakable crime. It also did massive damage to Europe's own identity and 
cultural confidence, and is one of the major causes of Europe's seeming inability to withstand the 
ongoing Islamic Jihad. 

As Hugh Fitzgerald notes , "Fortunately for so many, and for the Arabs, the victory of Israel in the 
Six-Day War promptly provided a reason to depict Jews as villains, not victims. This found an eager 
audience of Europeans, who were already eager for psychological reasons to find fault with Jews so 
as to avoid thinking unduly about the behavior of many European peoples and states during the war. 
[...] The damage done to the morale of Europe because of the destruction of European Jewry has 
been great. If Western Europe, or the West generally, were after all that has happened to permit 
Israel to go under, Europe would not recover." 

He warns that those who believe sacrificing Israel would in any way stop the global Jihad are very 
wrong. On the contrary, "The loss of Israel would fill the Arabs and Muslims with such 
triumphalism that their Jihad in Western Europe and elsewhere (including the Americas) would 
receive a gigantic boost. The duty is to make sure that Islam covers the globe; that Islam dominates, 
and Muslims rule." 

Europeans need to understand how closely intertwined are the fates of Israel and of Europe itself. 
The term "Judeo-Christian" is not a cliche. We cannot defend Western civilization without 
defending its Jewish component, without which modern Western culture would have been 

The religious identity of the West has two legs: The Christian and the Jewish ones. It needs both to 
stand upright. Sacrificing one to save the other is like fighting a battle by chopping off one of your 
legs, throwing it at the feet of your enemies and shouting: "You won't get the other one! We will 
never surrender!" We could always hope that our enemies will laugh themselves to death faster than 
we bleed to death, the Monty Python way of fighting. Maybe that works, but most likely it will 
leave us crippled and pathetic, if not dead. 

I agree with Mr. Finkielkraut: To reduce absolutely everything about Europe to gas chambers, 
thereby allowing the Nazis the opportunity to expropriate everything that has been created during 
thousands of years, is to grant Adolf Hitler victory posthumously. We should not award him that 
pleasure, especially since what would replace Western civilization would be Islamic culture, the 
most warlike and anti-Semitic on earth, and greatly admired by Mr. Hitler for it. 

We cannot change what has happened in the past. We should, however, consider it our duty to 
combat anti-Semitism in the here and now and make sure that the remaining Jews both in Europe 
and in Israel are safe. This is not just because it is our moral and historical obligation, which it is, 
but also because we only gain the right to defend ourselves against Islamization of we grant the 
same right to Israel. Likewise, we can only begin to heal our self-inflicted civilizational wounds if 
we embrace the Jewish component of our cultural identity. 


Muslim violence - crime or jihad? 

Friday, March 16, 2007 

Although the European Union warns against "," those who live in the real world know that there has 
been an explosion of violent infidelophobia in Western Europe staged by Muslim immigrants. This 
wave of violence especially targets Jews , but the attacks against Christians that are going on in the 
the Middle East , where there may soon be no Christians left in the cradle of Christianity , are 
increasingly spreading to Europe as well . In more and more cities across the continent, non- 
Muslims are being harassed, robbed, mugged, raped, stabbed and even killed by Muslims, yet EU 
leaders continue their quest to merge Europe and the Arab world by making it easier for Muslims to 
enter and settle in Europe. 

The fact that European leaders and media voice such concern for "Islamophobia" yet do very little 
to stop attacks against Christian Europeans demonstrates the creeping dhimmitude in Europe which 
has been accurately predicted by Bat Ye' or . Native Europeans are slowly becoming second-rate 
citizens in their own countries. 

This violence by Muslims is usually labelled simply as "crime," but I believe it should more 
accurately be called Jihad. Those who know early Islamic history, as described in books such as The 
Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non- 
Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior 
of Muhammad himself and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know 
exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo , for instance, it is documented that 
some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and 
abroad. As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God- 
given "hunting licence," granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. 

It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about tern percent of the population in France, 
they make up an estimated seventy percent of French prison inmates. Muslims are over-represented 
in jails in countries all over the world, and a striking number of non-Muslims in jail also convert to 
Islam. There could be many reasons for this. Some observers have suggested that prison inmates 
generally lack control over their personal lives, and thus seek a strict code which provides them 
with the discipline they themselves don't have. Perhaps, but personally I suspect that the most 
important reason is much more simple: If you're a Muslim you can continue doing criminal things 
yet at the same time claim to be morally superior. If you rob and mug non-Muslims you are not a 
thief or a thug, you are in fact a brave Jihadist doing God's noble work: 

Tariq Ramadan and Islam's Future in Europe 

Non-Muslims are lesser people. By saying this they justify the behaviour of young 
Muslim criminals who target the non-Muslims whilst they never touch fellow Muslims. 
They told me that drug trafficking is perfectly acceptable as long as one only sells to 
non-Muslims. They told me that stealing from non-Muslims is allowed as long as one 
does not harm fellow Muslims. One day our office was burgled and our computers were 
stolen. All except the two computers belonging to our two Muslim colleagues. You 
don't steal from brothers or sisters! 

Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, 
can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but 
against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour 


towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by 
referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be 
treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities 
refuse to hear it. 

Andrew Bostom has demonstrated in his book The Legacy of Jihad that the basic patterns have 
remained remarkably similar throughout the centuries, regardless of whether the non-Muslims in 
question were Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists. Jihad and dhimmitude frequently have 
less to do with huge terror attacks or spectacular invasions than with accumulated daily humiliations 
and insults. A small group of Muslims move into an area, then gradually expand their numbers and 
with continuous verbal and physical harassment of non-Muslims and sexual harassment of their 
women force them to leave their homes or convert to Islam. Here is an example from Iran where the 
non-Muslims are Zoroastrians, but it might as well have been certain areas of Amsterdam , 
Birmingham or the suburbs of of Paris today: 

The Islamization of Europe 

Mary Boyce, Emeritus Professor of Iranian Studies at the University of London, has 
confirmed the external validity of Bat Ye'or's analytical approach in her description of 
how jihad and dhimmitude (without the latter being specifically identified as such) 
transformed Zoroastrian society in an analogous manner. Boyce has written definitive 
assessments of those Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihad 
conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries 20. The Zoroastrians experienced 
an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical 
and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbors... Boyce 
describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her 
personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s: 

...Either a few Moslems settled on the 
outskirts of a Zoroastrian village, or one or 
two Zoroastrian families adopted Islam. 
Once the dominant faith had made a breach, 
it pressed in remorselessly, like a rising tide. 
More Moslems came, and soon a small mosque 
was built, which attracted yet others. As long as 
Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their 
lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems 

became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop. This 
was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few 
Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore 
posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The 
harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and 
bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the 
local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire -temple 
and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame. Those with criminal leanings found 
too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering 
from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who 
resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move 
to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they 
could live at peace; and so another village was lot to the old faith. Several of the leading 
families in Sharifabad and forebears who were driven away by intense Moslem pressure 


from Abshahi, once a very devout and orthodox village on the southern outskirts of 
Yazd; and a shorter migration had been made by the family of the centenarian 'Hajji' 
Khodabakhsh, who had himself been born in the 1850s and was still alert and vigorous 
in 1964. His family, who were very pious, had left their home in Ahmedabad (just to the 
north of Turkabad) when he was a small boy, and had come to settle in Sharifabad to 
escape persecution and the threats to their orthodox way of life. Other Zoroastrians held 
out there for a few decades longer, but by the end of the century Ahmedabad was wholly 
Moslem, as Abshahi become in 1961. [Boyce's footnote: The last Zoroastrian family 
left Abshahi in 1961, after the rape and subsequent suicide of one of their 
daughters.] It was noticeable that the villages which were left to the Zoroastrians were 
in the main those with poor supplies of water, where farming conditions were hard. 

Note: The following examples are all from Sweden, which is probably the most politically repressive 
and totalitarian country in the Western world, with virtually no public debate about immigration. 
Still, the muggings, rapes, beatings, murders and daily harassment described here could be from 
virtually any country in Western Europe, and indeed from any region in the world where Muslims 
are numerous enough to harass their non-Muslim neighbors: 

Veiled girl gang in Stockholm attacks old ladies 

A group of five teenage girls have been accused of a wave of vicious attacks against old 
women in Stockholm. . . 

The girls, aged 17 and 18, have been remanded in custody for attacking the women in 
Tensta and Rinkeby, suburbs of the capital. 

Their victims, mostly in their seventies and eighties, were usually mugged outside their 

In one of the muggings, the girls stole a 71 -year-old's handbag and pushed her down a 
flight of steps. In another case, a 78-year old woman was pushed to the ground and 
kicked where she lay. 

The girls worked in groups and wore veils during the attacks, making it harder for the 
police to identify them. 

While Sweden Slept, by Bruce Bawer 

Recently, the city of Stockholm carried out a survey of ninth-grade boys in the 
predominantly Muslim suburb of Rinkeby. The survey showed that in the last year, 17% 
of the boys had forced someone to have sex, 31% had hurt someone so badly that the 
victim required medical care, and 24% had committed burglary or broken into a car. 
Sensational statistics — but in all of Sweden, they appear to have been published only 
in a daily newssheet that is distributed free on the subways. 

Stockholm Suburb: "It's too Dangerous for Children here. Many are Wearing Bulletproof 


Nalin Pekgul, a well-known Social Democratic advocate of suburbs with a high 
concentration of immigrants, is leaving her own suburb Tensta because she thinks it has 
become too insecure. Tensta has become too dangerous for the children, she says. Nalin 


Pekgul, who is a Muslim herself, has also noted that fundamentalist variants of 
Islam are growing stronger in Tensta. Her children come home and wonder why 
their mother doesn't wear a hijab or why their family don't go to the mosque. They 
also have heard that Muslims are better than Christians. "I don't like it when my 
son comes home and says that 'Mom, we Muslims don't lie, but Christians do, 
because they don't have God.' He hasn't got that from us . We had not reckoned on 
this religious fundamentalism," she says. 

Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War 

The wave of robberies the [increasingly Muslim-dominated] city of Malmo has 
witnessed during this past year is part of a "war against the Swedes." This is the 
explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned 
about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Akesson for her thesis 
in sociology. . . 

"When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the 
Swedes." This argument was repeated several times. "Power for me means that the 
Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet." The boys explain, 
laughingly, that "there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you're robbing, you 
feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you've succeeded, it simply feels good." "It's so 
easy to rob Swedes, so easy." "We rob every single day, as often as we want to, 
whenever we want to." 

Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden 

The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape 
cases involving children under the age of 15 are six - 6 - times as common today as they 
were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. 
Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. 

An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that 
women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he's not the 
only one thinking this way. "It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab 
girl," says Hamid . "The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably 
f***ed before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, 
being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she 

marries. It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore girl, I mean;" says Hamid, and 

laughs over his own choice of words. "Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends 
when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from 
their own culture who has never been with a boy. That's what I am going to do. I don't 
have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f***ed to pieces." 

The New York Times and Sweden: The Dark Side of Paradise 

Ethnologist Maria Backman, in her study " Whiteness and gender ," has followed a group 
of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm, where native Swedes have 
been turned into a tiny minority of the inhabitants due to rapid immigration. . . Backman 
relates that several of the girls she interviewed stated that they had dyed their hair to 
avoid unwanted attention and sexual harassment. They experienced that being blonde 


involves old men staring at you, cars honking their horns and boys calling you 

The official explanation given by Swedish authorities to the increase [in rape charges] is 
that much of it is a "technical" increase due to the fact that more victims of rape now 
report this crime to the police. There is not a hint of evidence for this explanation. On 
the contrary, intimidation of people reporting any kind of crime to the police has rapidly 
worsened in Sweden during the same time period. Threats against witnesses in Swedish 
court cases quadrupled between 2000 and 2003 alone... Street violence of all kinds is 
soaring on a national level . Private security companies are in great demand in major 
Swedish cities, as a serious lack of police to combat rising crime has made many 
citizens tired of being robbed.. Gangs of 14- and 15-year-olds raping and robbing is now 
common in many Stockholm suburbs... At the same time, the underfunded and 
undermanned Swedish police officers feel "unmotivated" to fight crime, according to a 
study made by police researcher Stefan Holgersson, who interviewed 2000 Swedish 
police officers. 

One person who seems to have a decent grasp of what's happening with Muslim 
immigration in Sweden and Europe is Christopher Caldwell, who has written several 
articles about the topic, including one in the New York Times in February 2006 called " 
Islam on the Outskirts of the Welfare State." Visiting the Stockholm immigrant suburb 
of Rinkeby, Caldwell asked whether something like the French riots of the fall of 2005, 
with burning cars and rampaging gangs, could happen in Sweden. "Absolutely," said 
one lanky boy near the window. "People burn cars here all the time. Not because they're 
angry — because they think it's fun." 

One person who seems to have a decent grasp of what's happening with Muslim 
immigration in Sweden and Europe is Christopher Caldwell , who has written several 
articles about the topic, including one in the New York Times in February 2006 called 
" Islam on the Outskirts of the Welfare State. " Visting the Stockholm immigrant suburb 
of Rinkeby, Caldwell asked whether something like the French riots of the fall of 2005, 
with burning cars and rampaging gangs, could happen in Sweden. "Absolutely," said 
one lanky boy near the window. "People burn cars here all the time. Not because they're 
angry — because they think it's fun." 

Sweden: The Country that Sacrifices its Children, and Celebrates 

Sweden is a country that has virtually no public debate about mass immigration, which 
continues at full speed. The Swedish political and media elites congratulate themselves 
for their Multicultural goodness. If sacrificing your own children is the definition of 
good, then exactly what constitutes evil? 


A high school teacher in Malmo discovered that about a dozen Arab students were 
laughing and shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while watching a DVD of infidel hostages being 
beheaded in Iraq. The headmaster didn't think the incident was such a big deal. At least 
139 schools in Sweden suffered arson attacks during 2002 alone, a number which by 
2007 has grown to at least 230. Such as an incident in Malmo, where three schools were 
put on fire during one night. "Teenage boys" are suspected to behind the arson. Bjorn 
Vinberg from the fire department in Kroksback in the Malmo area says it's humiliating 


and degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school 
kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. His colleagues have been 
to the same place no less than twenty times, all totally unnecessary 

From The Local , January 12, 2007: Rival gangs of 10-year-olds in the eastern town of Soderhamn 
have threatened to wipe each other out. One of the gangs is made up of indigenous Swedes and the 
other of immigrants, and police in the town are taking the problem very seriously. The conflict has 
escalated on the Internet, and police fear that there may be fatalities if the fighting is not stopped. 

"Let Them Eat Kebab" - The New Marie Antoinettes 

Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the previous Social Democratic Swedish government, said 
during a radio debate that: "We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because 
when we become a minority, they will be so towards us." 

In 2006, a man was attacked and nearly killed for the crime of wearing clothes with his own 
national flag while Sweden was participating in the World Cup. Sweden, of course, has the same 
Christian cross in its flag as does England, and apparently, some "Multicultural youths" found this 
to be an intolerable provocation. The 24-year-old man was run down by a car in the city of Malmo. 
According to the police, he was wearing some clothes with Swedish national symbols on them, and 
this "provoked some emotions." 


Native Revolt: A European Declaration of Independence 

Fri, 2007-03-16 07:52 

After the death last Sunday of Rinie Mulder , a 54-year old indigenous Dutchman who was shot by a 
police officer, non-immigrant citizens went on a rampage in Utrecht. Apparently Mulder intervened 
when Muslim youths harassed a pregnant native Dutch woman. Locals claim the police has failed to 
protect them for years. They say the authorities are afraid of the immigrants and tolerate their 
criminal behavior. 

This issue is not just about Utrecht or Holland. Similar resentment against Muslim immigrants, but 
at least as much against their own authorities, is quietly brewing among the natives all over Western 

It is insulting that two thirds of the Dutch, one of the founding members of the European 
community, voted against the proposed EU Constitution, and yet EU leaders will apparently just 
ignore this and force their massively undemocratic Constitution down people's throats anyway. The 
German Presidency wants EU leaders to agree on a text for a new treaty by February 2008. The 
label 'Constitution' is to be dropped , in order to avoid further referendums. 

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso expressed unease with the prospect of a 
second Dutch constitution referendum. "Referendums make the process of approval of European 
treaties much more complicated and less predictable," he said "If a referendum had been held on the 
creation of the European Community or the introduction of the Euro, do you think these would have 

Although the EU warns against " Islamophobia ," those who live in the real world know that there 
has been an explosion of violent infidelophobia in Western Europe staged by Muslim immigrants. 
This wave of violence especially targets Jews , but the attacks against Christians that are going on in 
the Middle East are increasingly spreading to Europe as well . In more and more cities across the 
continent, non-Muslims are being harassed, robbed, mugged, raped, stabbed and even killed by 
Muslims. Native Europeans are slowly becoming second-rate citizens in their own countries. 

This violence by Muslims is usually labelled simply as "crime," but I believe it should more 
accurately be called Jihad. Those who know early Islamic history, as described in books such as The 
Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non- 
Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior 
of Muhammad himself and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know 
exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, for instance, it is documented that 
some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and 
abroad. As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out , the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God- 
given "hunting licence," granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. It is 
hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about 10% of the population in France, they make up 
an estimated 70% of French prison inmates . 

In the city of Antwerp, Belgium, Marij Uijt den Bogaard from 2003 to 2006 worked as a civil 
servant in the immigrant borough of Berchem. She noted how radical Islamist groups began to take 
over the immigrant neighbourhoods, but was fired when she warned against this danger in her 
reports to the authorities: 

"Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify 
that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a 
kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the 
headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that 
these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my 


reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it." 

Filmmaker Pierre Rehov tells how a friend of his is a retired chief of police who used to be in 
charge of the security of a major city in the south of France. According to him, 80% of the rapes in 
the area were made by Muslim young men. In most cases, the parents would not understand why 
they would be arrested. The only evil those parents would see, genuinely, was the temptation that 
the male children had to face from infidel women. 

The wave of robberies the increasingly Muslim-dominated city of Malmo is witnessing is part of a 
"war against Swedes," this according to statements from the immigrant youths themselves. "When 
we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes." This 
argument was repeated several times. "Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down 
on the ground and kiss my feet." 

Jonathan Friedman, an American living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act of 
1997 proclaimed that " Sweden is a Multicultural society ." The Act implicitly states that Sweden 
doesn't have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there. Native Swedes have been 
reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Somalis 
who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it: "In Sweden, it's almost as if the state has 
sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class." 

Pierre Schori, Minister for immigration, during a parliamentary debate in 1997 said that: "Racism 
and xenophobia should be banned and chased [away]," and that one should not accept "excuses, 
such as that there were flaws in the immigration and refugee policies." In other words: It should be 
viewed as a crime for the indigenous population not to assist in wiping themselves out. The state is 
turned into an enemy of the very population it is supposed to protect. Swedes pay some of the 
highest tax rates in the world, and for this they get runaway crime rates and a government that is 
actively hostile to their interests. 

Exit the People's Home of Sweden is a book from 2005 about immigration and the Swedish welfare 
state model. According to the authors, the Multicultural elites see themselves first of all as citizens 
of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate diversity, everything that smacks of "native 
culture" is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this policy is considered a form of racism: 

"The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of 
silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the 
nation state." 

Researchers Gert Tinggaard Svendsen og Gunnar Lind Haase Svendsen have written the book 
Social Kapital . When general levels of trust were measured in 86 countries, the Nordic nations 
Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland came out on top. According to the authors, the trust 
between citizens and the trust between citizens and the state is very high in these countries, and this 
"social capital" is highly profitable and accounts for up a to a quarter of these countries' wealth. 

However, they also warn that such trust is vulnerable. A society can lose its social capital and trust 
rather quickly, but it can take centuries to rebuild it. This social capital is now being squandered a 
matter of official state policy all over Western Europe, accompanied by wild cheers from the media 
and the intelligentsia. 

Although such high levels of trust are in many ways attractive and desirable, they also contain some 
potential pitfalls. People's trusting nature may make them easy targets for outsiders from more 
cynical cultures, who view them as gullible fools. However, it also makes them vulnerable to threats 
from within. 

In the 1990s, Swedish authorities decided that native Swedes and their culture had no more claim to 
the country than Kurds. At the same time, the country became a member of the EU. Mass 
immigration to Sweden started years before EU membership and wasn't caused by this, but the EU 
certainly didn't help. Now suddenly, as with other EU members, Swedes have most of their laws 


passed by unelected EU bureaucrats rather than their own elected national representatives. 

Swedes were used to that laws were passed with their consent and with their best interests in mind, 
because by and large they had been. Within a few years, all of this has changed. Laws are now 
passed by EU bureaucrats who don't give a damn about their interests, and by elites who don't care 
about their own people, in fact view them as potential stumbling blocks for the new Multicultural 
society. Yet most Europeans still follow these laws. Why? I can see at least two reasons. 

Germany's ex-president Roman Herzog pointed out that between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the 
legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels, and warned that "EU policies suffer to an alarming 
degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers. The 
question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary 

Why is this pan-European EU dictatorship still functioning? Because seeing is believing. Most 
Europeans still don't know that EU leaders are using their money without their consent to merge 
Europe with the Arab world because their media don't tell them this. Due to the common Euro 
currency and the lack of national borders they can move around most of Europe at ease, which 
seems convenient. They don't physically see, however, that the EU has also usurped the power of 
their national parliaments. The latter appear to be working just as always, but have now been 
reduced to implementing the policies of unelected Eurocrats. 

The second reason is because ordinary European citizens are held hostage by their own law-abiding 
nature. Abiding by rules and regulations used to serve them well in the past, but things have 
changed. Even the laws that are in their interest are no longer upheld. Their nations have vacated 
their national borders and the ensuing uncontrolled mass immigration is creating rampant urban 

For Dutchmen, in what once was a peaceful and orderly country, to go against decades of 
indoctrination to stage something like the recent uprisings in Utrecht, they have to feel an extreme 
amount of repressed frustration and anger. Perhaps they watched the media reactions to the Muslim 
riots in France, which were sympathetic and were followed by promises from political leaders to 
listen to the "legitimate grievances" of the rioters. Perhaps the native Dutch in Utrecht thought that 
hey, we are quiet and peaceful and yet we get only contempt from our so-called leaders. Muslims 
burn stuff and get concessions. Perhaps we should start burning stuff, too. What have we got to 
lose? We're already losing our country. 

The excellent Chinese blogger Ohmyrus has warned against precisely this: 

"While it took a long time for Europeans to learn to settle their differences peacefully through the 
ballot box, this important lesson is slowly being unlearned. The lesson learned from the Danish 
cartoon affair is that violence pays. Most Western governments caved in by issuing apologies or 
condemning the cartoons instead of defending free speech. Soon groups that oppose immigration 
will turn to violence too. If European democracies cannot manage their ethnic tensions, democracy 
will break down, ushering in dictatorial rule." 

In a British poll from January 2007 , a massive 82% disagreed (57% strongly) as to whether the 
government was in control of immigration. When asked if the government was "open and honest" 
about the scale of immigration into Britain, 80% disagreed. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of 
Migrationwatch, said: "After a decade of efforts to stifle debate, there is now a fundamental lack of 
trust between the Government and the public on this issue." The numbers also "reflect a deep 
underlying resentment among the public that they have not had any opportunity to express their 
views - still less to be consulted - on a matter of major importance to them and to the future of our 

According to Theodore Dalrymple , "For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if 
not always de jure, has been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals 


and criminality. Almost alone of British government policies, this one has been supremely effective: 
no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a 
criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence." 

He fears that "the failure of the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and to take 
seriously its duty in this regard, creates a politically dangerous situation, for it puts the very 
legitimacy of the state itself at risk. The potential consequences are incalculable, for the failure 
might bring the rule of law itself into disrepute and give an opportunity to the brutal and the 

In Norway, local politician Bengt Michalsen had a tape from a surveillance camera clearly 
identifying two youths as doing damage to a van at a car park. He delivered the tape to the police, 
and months later received a note that the case had been dismissed because the police didn't have the 
capacity to prosecute it. According to the local police chief, the public "just had to get used to" the 
fact the police wouldn't spend time on petty crime. 

So, that means that Scandinavians will have to protect our own property, right? Not exactly. The 
authorities just want us to take it lying down and do nothing. 

In Denmark, at least one of three would-be robbers shot by a watchmaker plans to file for 
compensation over wrongful injury, loss of work time and loss of the ability to work. The three 
threatened the watchmaker by putting a fake pistol up to his chin, but he had a real pistol behind his 
counter and managed to fire it. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and taken into 
police custody. Attorney Svend Raether said that it is possible for the thief to receive compensation, 
despite having been injured while committing a crime. 

Citizens in Western European countries pay high taxes to a state that is totally incapable of 
protecting our most basic rights, and is frequently unwilling even to try. With hate speech laws we 
are deprived of the right to protest against being swamped by immigration that will eventually 
render us minorities in our own countries. The law is used to punish the law-abiding while the 
criminals rule the streets. 

If the authorities refuse to uphold the laws designed to protect us and keep passing new laws that 
threaten the freedom of our children and the survival of our nations, we will sooner or later have to 
decide when civil disobedience becomes not just a right, but a duty. And I fear what will happen 
once we reach that point, which may not be too far off. Judging from the recent uprisings in 
Utrecht, this process has already begun. 

Vladimir Bukovksy, a former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to 
becoming another Soviet Union : 

"The sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have 
done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very 
fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on 
Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population 
refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that." 

Mr. Bukovsky is right. Europeans should launch tax rebellions and stage street demonstrations in 
every major European city until Muslim immigration is ended. We should stage a Million Man 
March to Brussels, for instance on September 11th this year, to demand that the pan-European 
dictatorship called the European Union is dismantled. We need to get angry and squeeze our so- 
called leaders into doing this, since they obviously understand nothing else. 

Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence from 1776: 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the 
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such 
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their 
Safety and Happiness. [...] It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to 


provide new Guards for their future security." 

Europeans are currently subject to worse insults from our governments than the Americans were at 
that time, being persecuted in our own cities and subject to a government-supported program of 
gradual cultural eradication. We need a European Declaration of Independence, calling for our 
emancipation from the bureaucratic feudalism of Brussels and the totalitarian ideology of 
Multiculturalism. Allow me to write the first draft: 

A European Declaration of Independence 

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, 
Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, (fill in the blanks) demand that the following steps are taken 

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their 
countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up 
to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control 
their own borders nor their policies, and they don't as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. 
National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no 
obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes. 

We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian 
networks for "Euro-Mediterranean cooperation" between European countries and Arab countries 
since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye'or's work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their 
full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest 
betrayals in the history of Western civilization - should stand trial, followed by a period of general 
de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations. 

We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is 
proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism 
against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in 
support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously 
been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel's defense, partly to establish a 
Global Infidel Defense Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim 
persecution of non-Muslims worldwide. 

We demand that the ideology of Multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all 
government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the 
continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism 
has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for 
unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture's 
eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an 
obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations. 

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely 
halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time 
when law and order has been reestablished in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations 
of "racism." Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries 
in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history. We are sick 
and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and 
even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of "racism and xenophobia" by our 
media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration. 

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonization by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts 
aimed at our Islamization and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign 
invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non- 

Europeans have the right to resist colonization and desire self-determination then Europeans have 
that right, too. And we intend to exercise it. 

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn't dismantled, 
Multiculturalism isn't rejected and Muslim immigration isn't stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are 
left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes 
they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are 
illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own 
security and ensure our national survival. 


The migration flood 

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 

In 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne warned Europe in a speech at the UN : 
"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. 
And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will 
conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory. " 

"Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have 
to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near. " — Belgium-based imam in 1994. 

Marie Simonsen, political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 
2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate 
wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population 
growth of several billion people to 2050, which amounts to a growth of more than one million 
people every week. It doesn't take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain 
death for a tiny Scandinavian nation such as Norway — not in a matter of generations, but 
theoretically even within a few weeks. 

Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the cultural eradication and perhaps physical annihilation of her 
own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought, no doubt congratulating herself for her own 
tolerance. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment; this 
silence could be construed as a demonstration that most of them share her views, or at least have 
themselves resigned to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable. 

Meanwhile, the EU is busy "combating" illegal immigration from Africa — by making it legal: 

EU Offers Legal Jobs to Africa In Bid To Stop Illegal Immigration 

The European Union plans to open a job centre in Mali, in an experiment aimed at boosting the 
migration to the EU that is skilled, legal and temporary immigration from Africa. In return for 
assistance with legal "circular immigration" Frattini expects Mali to boost its cooperation in the 
fight against illegal immigration to the EU. If successful, the EU will establish a network of job 
centres across Africa. In the 1960s Germany introduced a similar scheme for Turkish 'guest 
workers' who came to do the jobs no one wanted. However the scheme never became the 'circular 
migration' that the German government envisaged, and tensions erupted when Turkish migrants 
demanded citizenship rights. German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble told reporters he backed 
the new scheme because if the countries in question were going to help stem the flow of illegal 
immigration "you have to give something in return." EU members France and Spain have recently 
signed such accords with Senegal, the jumping off point for many desperate immigrants heading for 
Spain's Canary islands. 

West Africa — Europe's New Border 

A study by the Royal Elcano Institute in Madrid argues that Europe may be on the brink of a flood 
of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, with potentially historic implications. Rickard Sandell, chief 
investigator for demography, reported: "Both economic and demographic data provide evidence that 
this is only the beginning of an immigration phenomenon that could evolve into one of the largest in 


history. . .the mass assault on Spain's African border may just be a first warning of what to expect of 
the future. The situation is so serious that the possibility of a mass exodus if the African states fail to 
absorb their rapidly increasing working age population should not be ruled out. Nor can we rule out 
the possibility of armed conflict as a result of the political unrest that is likely to follow from a lack 
of effective management of the unprecedented increase in the labour supply." 

Stupidity Without Borders — The Alliance of Utopias 

"We were just tired of living in the forest," explained a man from Guinea-Bissau . "There was 
nothing to eat, there was nothing to drink." In mid-September, Africans began assaulting the frontier 
of Spain's small enclaves in Africa en masse. Deploying crude ladders made of branches, they used 
their weight to bring the fences down in places. As one of them put it, "We go in a group and all 
jump at once. We know that some will get through, that others will be injured and others may die, 
but we have to get through, whatever the cost." 

The Jihad Continues in Spain 

Morocco and Spain vowed overnight to work together to bore a tunnel under the Strait of Gibraltar 
to link Africa and Europe. Moroccan experts say the long-mooted 39km rail tunnel would be among 
the world's most sophisticated engineering works and rival the Channel Tunnel linking England and 
France. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero pledged to drum up European Union 
support for a project he said "would change Africa and Europe". 

Africa migration to Europe inevitable-Gaddafi 

Migration is an age-old fact of life that governments must accept if they want to manage the flow of 
job-seekers moving from Africa to Europe, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi told an Africa-Europe 
conference on migration. "Action against nature is like rowing against the stream, which leads to 
failure," Gaddafi told African and European interior ministers at the first African Union-European 
Union conference on migration, the Libyan news agency reported. "Political borders, official papers 
and identities set for every group of people are new, artificial things not recognised by nature. Land 
is property of everyone, and God commands all human beings to migrate on earth to seek a living, 
which is their right." 

EU-Africa Summit Addresses European Migration 

European and African nations met in Libya to seek ways to stem the rising tide of illegal migration. 
The Libyan foreign minister, Abd al-Rahman Shalgam, told the conference that EU countries must 
provide assistance to Libya. Shalgam also says more projects are needed on the ground in Africa to 
keep people in their own countries. African leaders agree that more jobs need to be created so that 
people will not have to leave their countries to earn a living. 

Who Are We, Who Are Our Enemies — The Cost of Historical Amnesia 

The Barbary Jihad piracy had been going on since the earliest Arab-Islamic expansion in the 7th and 
8th centuries. During the 16th and 17th centuries, as many Europeans were captured, sold, and 
enslaved by the Barbary corsairs while West Africans shipped for plantation labor in the Americas 
by European slave traders. Robert Davis' methodical enumeration indicates that between one and 


one and one-quarter million white European Christians were enslaved by the Barbary Muslims from 
1530 through 1780. 

Some Arabs seem to miss the good old days when they could extract Jizya payments from the West. 
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has stated that he thinks that European nations should pay 10 
billion euros ($12.7 billion dollars) a year to Africa to help it stop migrants flooding northwards into 
Europe. Apart from being a clear-cut example of how migration, or rather population dumping by 
Third World countries, has become a tool for blackmail in the 21st century, this is a throwback to 
the age when Tripoli could extract payments from Europe. 

EU, African ministers seek common stand on immigration 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees urged participants to make special provision 
for "refugees and other people who have need of protection." Amnesty International called on 
European countries to "open legal channels of migration as an important element in a global 
strategy on migration and development". So far Libya has refused Europeans permission to patrol 
its territorial waters, amid suspicions in Europe that Libyan leader Kadhafi turns the immigration 
tap on and off to suit his immediate interests. 

EU job centres to target Africans 

The International Organisation for Migration says it's a "constructive step in the right direction. You 
can't manage migration flows by simply having tougher border controls," says IOM spokesman 
Jean-Philippe Chauzy. "If you're trying to undercut the people smugglers, the best way is to open 
up legal opportunities (for migrants)." 

Chirac: Africans 'will flood world' 

Jacques Chirac, the French president, claimed Africans "will flood the world" if more is not done to 
improve the continent's economy. He said that almost half of the 950 million people living on the 
African continent were under the age of 17, adding that the population would more than double by 
the middle of the century. "If we do not develop Africa, if we do not make available the necessary 
resources to bring about this development, these people will flood the world." 

Beware: the new goths are coming 

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would 
be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "Barbary" pirates could be attacking 
yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe could be undermined by large 
immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry 
described it. If a security breakdown occurred, he said, it was likely to be brought on by 
environmental destruction and a population boom, coupled with technology and radical Islam. The 
result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the 
Goths and the Vandals." 

Fatalism and the Loss of Western Cultural Confidence 

The waves of migration that the Western world is faced with now are magnitudes greater in scope 
than those which brought down the Roman Empire. At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the 
West every year until 2050, according to a United Nations report . It appears to be taken for granted 
by the UN that we will sit back, bleed to death and accept all these millions to flood our countries. It 
is presented like a natural disaster, as if the massive population growth cannot be stopped by the 


nations in question, and the ensuing migration cannot be limited by Western countries. 
But both these assumptions are wrong. Westerners should not and cannot take responsibility for 
billions of people in other parts of the world. They will have to limit their population growth to a 
sustainable level. We have already accepted more immigration peacefully than any other society has 
done in human history. 

There is a significant element of blackmail here. A group of African leaders told the European 
Union that they needed to get huge amounts of money to limit mass migration from their countries, 
which is a tacit admission that they can control this mass movement of people if they want to. 

Many Westerners watch with resigned fatalism as we are told by our leaders and our media that this 
is "inevitable." But nothing is inevitable. Our societies will collapse, yet we are supposed to stand 
by quietly and simply observe our own demise. On one hand, the economic right-wing assures us 
that this unparalleled mass migration will be "good for the economy." On the other hand, left- 
wingers attack those of us who are concerned for our cultural survival us for inciting "racism and 
discrimination." Meanwhile all we desire is our continued existence. 

At Lawrence Auster's blog , an Indian living in the West writes: "They say that all 'rich nations' will 
face mass immigration. But, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and even Malaysia are also 
rich nations. Immigration to those countries is close to zero. I think that immigration is matter of 
government policy and national will. If the will is there, you can have zero immigration or limited 
immigration. But there isn't the will to do anything about immigration in the West. Instead they sit 
and wring their hands. (...) If there was ever a picture of a society that has been completely 
finished, this is it. You don't have to discriminate on racial grounds or religious grounds, just reduce 
the annual quota to 1000 or 10000. Nothing illiberal about that. But they cannot contemplate even 
that! Westerners amuse me. Even the worst cowards in the so-called 'third world' have more spine 
than this. 

The Failure of Western Universities 

Professor Sigurd Skirbekk at the University of Oslo questions many of the assumptions underlying 
Western immigration policies. One of these unwritten rules is the notion that rich countries have a 
duty to take in any and all people from other nations that are suffering, either from natural disasters, 
political repression or overpopulation. 

According to Professor Skirbekk, it cannot be considered moral behavior on the part of the cultural, 
political and religious elites of these countries to allow their populations to grow unrestrained and 
then push their excess population onto other nations. Skirbekk points out that European countries 
earlier rejected the Germans when they used the argument of lebensraum as a motivation for their 
foreign policy. 

We should now follow the same policy when other countries invoke the argument that they lack 
space for their population. Skirbekk says there is plenty of literature available about the ecological 
challenges the world will be facing in this century. Demanding a too- liberal immigration policy 
while refusing to confront such unpleasant moral issues is not a sustainable alternative in the long 


What do we fight for? 

Sunday, May 06, 2007 

I have tried to contribute to a new vocabulary by coining the word " Caucasophobia " for anti-white 
racism, and have suggested the term " self-termination " for organized Western self-loathing and the 
Western policy of unilaterally dismantling our own culture. Both terms are OK, but if somebody 
can come up with something better and more catchy, I'm all ears. One can say many bad things 
about the word "Islamophobia," but it's easy to understand and sticks in your mind. If the shariabots 
can come up with a word like that then infidels shouldn't be any less inventive. 

We are against Sharia and Jihad, but what are we for? What is Western civilization? What exactly 
sets it apart from others and makes it worth keeping? If we're going to defend "freedom" and 
"Western civilization," we need to define precisely what we are talking about. 

I would personally say that the emphasis on the individual is our most defining trait as a 
civilization. Both Muslims and internal collectivists hate our individualism the most, because it 
stands in the way of their ideologies. This is why they go to great lengths to smash it and replace it 
with group thinking. However, even our individualism can potentially be carried into such extremes 
that it can become a problem. Individuals still need to feel part of something greater and enduring, 
or society will be left unable to defend itself. 

Another Western trait is a non-fatalistic outlook on the world and a belief in the ability of 
individuals to affect their own future, combined with linear thinking versus circular thinking, a high 
value placed on rationality versus emotionalism and last, but not least, curiosity — wanting to know 
how things "tick." 

I still remember the first time I read the Koran. I soon discovered how intolerant it was, but my first 
impression was actually not that it was violent, but that it was remarkably incoherent and difficult to 
read. It's frequently self-contradictory, and Allah is portrayed as an unpredictable god. The Bible is 
more structured and with a higher literary quality than the Koran, even to a non-religious person. 
When European scientists initiated the Scientific Revolution , they assumed that God had made 
nature according to logical patterns that could be uncovered and predicted. But Islam, starting out 
with the structure of the Koran itself, assumes that there is no pattern, and that nature is simply 
subject to Allah's whims. 

I have given detailed explanations to non-Muslims of how Muslims continuously deceive infidels, 
but frankly, Muslims even lie to each other. I've gradually come to the conclusion that it's not so 
much about lying as about the fact that truth is irrelevant in Islamic culture, which is why all kinds 
of ridiculous conspiracy theories always find an eager audience there. Notice how Pakistani ex- 
Muslim Mohammed Rasoel writes in his book The Downfall of the Netherlands — Land of the 
Naive Fools how he comes from a culture where people "lie all the time," and consider persons who 
actually say what they think to be gullible fools. 

Needless to say, this is also why Muslims have such a poor track record in science. Science is about 
uncovering truth, and if you come from a culture which holds that truth is irrelevant, you have a 
huge handicap. That is why the Scientific Revolution happened in Christian Europe, and not in the 
Islamic Middle East. 


The sad part is, we are abandoning the scientific method in the West as well. And it's not the only 
instance where we are regressing. Hate crime legislation constitutes a radical departure from the 
idea of equality before the law. You will be punished differently for assaulting a black Muslim than 
for the same crime against a white Christian, a Hindu woman or a Jewish woman, a gay man or a 
straight man etc. Some would argue that this already happens in real life. However, the point here is 
that this principle has now become a formal aspect of the law. This constitutes a gross perversion of 
justice. It mirrors Islamic law, which mandates different punishments for the same crime, depending 
upon the religious background and the sex of both the perpetrator and the victim. 

Islam has always valued individual life inequitably. But now there is a creeping tendency within the 
West toward the same view. In the case of assault or murder, an additional sentence is added if the 
act is viewed as a "hate crime." Murder is murder, and all human life is to be valued equally. 
However, according to Multiculturalism we are required to treat all cultures and religions as equally 
valid, which they obviously are not. This perversion of reality makes the Western system of justice 
vulnerable to infiltration by Islamic law. 

The West has traditionally been a rational civilization. We now have an emotional culture, which we 
see clearly in the immigration debate where emphasis is on whether you "feel good" and whether 
your "intentions" are good when you support mass immigration, not on rationally calculating the 
long-term consequences of your actions. 

Our education system is no longer dedicated to searching for truth or even recognizing the concept 
that there is such a thing as "truth" in the first place, only multiple truths, all equally valid. Christian 
Europe could stage the Scientific Revolution precisely because it believed in truth and wanted to 
uncover truth. Post-Christian, Multicultural Europe no longer believes in truth, and would thus have 
been unable to stage the Scientific Revolution. 

It is remarkable to notice how effective the "counter-culture" of the 1960s has been at attacking the 
pillars of Western civilization: Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to 
uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. We have thus 
abandoned the ideal of rationality and objectivity, which used to be the foundation of our culture. 

Our religious heritage as well as the social basis of our society, the nuclear family, has been under 
constant attack. Our legal system, at least in Europe, is moving away from the ideal of laws passed 
with the consent of the people and with their best interest in mind into transnational legislation 
written by faceless technocrats, with no loyalty to any specific people. The EU Constitution betrays 
an almost sharia-like desire to control all aspects of our lives, instead of upholding law and order 
and otherwise staying out of the way. 

And finally, we are in the middle of an age where focus is on "subgroups" within the nation state, 
not on individuals. The anti-Westerners have taken great care to break down our religion, our 
individualism, our rationalism and finally our connection with the past , to make sure we don't 
remember that we ever possessed any of these traits in the first place. Unfortunately, they have 
succeeded rather well so far. We are abandoning what once made us great, and are moving in the 
direction of Sharia Lite when it comes to free speech, equality before the law, and lack of 

What are we fighting for? We are fighting for freedom of thought and for freedom of speech, for the 
right to criticize not just our government, but all doctrines, political and religious. The fight against 


hate speech and hate crime legislation now constitutes a front line in the battle for liberty. 

We are fighting for secular laws passed with the consent of the people, not sharia nor transnational 
legislation drafted by bureaucrats and technocrats unaccountable to the people. We do not want to 
be held hostage by international NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of 
the truth. Likewise, we are fighting for national sovereignty. No nation regardless of political 
system can survive the loss of its territorial integrity, but democratic states especially so. We pay 
national taxes because our authorities are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can't do 
so, the social contract is breached, and we should no longer be required to pay our taxes. 

We are fighting for equality before the law. Hate crime legislation is weakening this, by treating 
people as members of a group, gay-straight, male-female, black-white etc, instead of as an 
individual, and also de facto results in unequal punishment for the same crime. 

We are fighting for the right to view a nation as a cultural unit, not just a random space on a map. A 
country has the right to decide how much, if any, immigration it wants to accept. The idea of 
unlimited mass migration is 21st century Communism. Man is not just homo economicus, the 
economic man, the sum of his functions as labor and consumer, who can be supplanted from one 
region of the world to the next at will. Multiculturalism implicitly means that the native population 
have to suppress and erase their own cultural traditions and historical identity. People have the right 
to want to preserve their culture and pass it on to future generations. 

Finally, I'd like to talk about one aspect of Western culture that tends to be downplayed, but is quite 
important: We are the only culture in the history of mankind to develop realistic, faithful depictions 
of beings and matter in our paintings and sculptures, rather than merely stylized depictions. We are 
also the only culture to invent a way to depict three-dimensional subjects in a two-dimensional 
format. A similar three-dimensional perspective was lacking in all other types of early art, be that 
Chinese or Japanese, East Indian, Mesoamerican, African or Middle Eastern. This could 
conceivably be because we have perceived space and spatial relationships in a different way than 
the rest of the world. What does that mean for our culture? 

Egyptian art was dedicated to preserving the body for the afterlife. Artists drew from memory, 
according to strict rules. The ancient Egyptians were not Westerners, but they did contribute a lot to 
those who later became Westerners, the Greeks and the Romans. 

In the brilliant book The Story of Art , writer E.H. Gombrich explains this. For an Egyptian artist, 
"once he had mastered all these rules he had finished his apprenticeship. No one wanted anything 
different, no one asked him to be 'original'. On the contrary, he was probably considered the best 
artist who could make his statues most like the admired monuments of the past. So it happened that 
in the course of three thousand years or more Egyptian art changed very little. Everything that was 
considered good and beautiful in the age of the pyramids was held to be just as excellent a thousand 
years later." 

There was only one major exception to this, and that was the heretical Pharaoh Akhenaten in the 
14th century BC. The art depicting him and his wife Nefertiti is quite naturalistic. It is unlike 
anything before in Egyptian history, and may have been inspired by that of the Minoan culture on 
the island of Crete, by many considered to be the first European civilization. Some of this style is 
still discernible in objects found in the tomb of Tutankhaten, believed to be son of Akhenaten, who 
later changed his name to Tutankhamun as the old religion was reestablished. 

Even though the artistic legacy of Akhenaten was quickly forgotten, his religious ideas may have 


proven far more durable. His insistence on worshipping one supreme god, Aten, makes him a 
pioneer in monotheism. It has been speculated, though disputed by many scholars, that Akhenaten's 
ideas may have inspired those of Moses, which led to the creation of Judaism and, by extension, 

What is less disputed is that the earliest alphabet, the ancestor of nearly every alphabet used around 
the globe, including, via Phoenician, the Greek and the Latin ones, was partly derived from 
Egyptian hieroglyphs representing syllables. 

Greek artists studied and imitated Egyptian art, but experimented and decided to look for 
themselves instead of following any traditional, ready-made formula. As Gombrich says, "The 
Greeks began to use their eyes. Once this revolution had begun, there was no stopping it." It is 
surely no coincidence that this Great Awakening of art to freedom took place in the hundred years 
between, roughly, 520 and 420 BC, in Greek city-states such as Athens where philosopher Socrates 
challenged our ideas about the world: 

"It was here, above all, that the greatest and most astonishing revolution in the whole history of art 
bore fruit. (...) The great revolution of Greek art, the discovery of natural forms and of 
foreshortening, happened at the time which is altogether the most amazing period of human 
history." This art was later spread far beyond the borders of Greece, when Alexander the Great 
created his empire and brought Hellenistic art to Asia: 

"Even in far-distant India, the Roman way of telling a story, and of glorifying a hero, was adopted 
by artists who set themselves the task of illustrating the story of a peaceful conquest, the story of the 
Buddha. The art of sculpture had flourished in India long before the Hellenistic influence reached 
the country; but it was in the frontier region of Gandhara that the figure of Buddha was first shown 
in the reliefs which became the model for later Buddhist art. (...) Greek and Roman art, which had 
taught men to visualize gods and heroes in beautiful form, also helped the Indians to create an 
image of their saviour. The beautiful head of the Buddha, with its expression of deep repose, was 
also made in this frontier region of Gandhara." 

Buddhism spread from India to the rest of Asia, and brought with it these influences from Western 
art. This is highly significant if we remember that the invention of block printing during the Tang 
dynasty in China was intimately linked to Buddhist monasteries and Buddhist art. Alexander the 
Great may also have brought with him inked seals to India during his invasion, and Indian 
merchants later introduced them to the Chinese. Stamped figures of the Buddha marked the 
transition from seal impression to woodcut in China. 

The oldest surviving printed texts from East Asia are Buddhist scriptures. Printing was thus used to 
promulgate a specific religion, just like Gutenberg's printing press in Europe was later used to print 
Bibles. The Islamic Middle East, however, for centuries rejected both the Eastern and the Western 
printing traditions due to religious intolerance and hostility towards pictorial arts. And they suffered 
all the more for it. 


A communism for the 21st century 

Thursday, May 10, 2007 

I've received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of 
Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it's all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established 
Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don't believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism 
themselves, so we shouldn't waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A 
desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about 
the desired end result articulated as well. 

On one hand, we're supposed to "celebrate" our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo 
to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically 
coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils 
down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be 
celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them. 

We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and 

change at will. The Multicultural society is "colorful," an adjective 
normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window 
decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have 
one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. 
Don't you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about 
exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it's slightly less 
comfortable than the old one, but it's very much in vogue these days 
and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. 
Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with 
that sharia? 

We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view 
of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with 
Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as 
worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn't say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no 
consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic 

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries 
in the future, this doesn't matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of 
everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, 
Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won't make a big difference. All religions basically say 
that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that 
all political ideologies "basically mean the same thing." They simply don't view religious or 
cultural ideas as significant, and thus won't spend time on studying the largely unimportant details 
of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism. 

The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the 
world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, 
because mankind will be one and equal. It's cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who 
create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute "discrimination" and an obstacle to 
this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, 
replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where 
international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — 


supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives. 

What the proponents of this ideology don't say is that even if it were possible to melt all human 
beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take 
generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous 
suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated. 

All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as 
imaginary social constructs. We are told that "all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other," 
that we were "all immigrants" at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any 
specific piece of land as "theirs." 

Since "we" are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist 
"counter-culture" of the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of 
Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can 
inflict upon a society. Maybe it's true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education 
system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of 
Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our 
countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt 
was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no 
sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a 

Codie Stott , a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section 
five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because 
some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints 
taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank 
said: "A lot of these arrests don't result in prosecutions - the aim is to frighten us into self- 
censorship until we watch everything we say." 

Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for 
standing outside a mosque shouting, "Proud to be British," and "Go back to where you came from." 
This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship 
for having several wives. 

Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against "racists," openly brag about 
numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their 
website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a 
classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few 
generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their 
own country through mass immigration are the bad guys. 

The extreme Left didn't succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go 
for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw 
material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed 
such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new 
proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them. A poll carried out on behalf of the 
Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 
15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. "Unfortunately 
we were not at all surprised by the findings," Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website 


The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less 
than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that 
Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several 
reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that "a large majority of Swedish journalists are 
left-wingers, many of them quite far left." 

I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western 
Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the 
Multicultural society. 

The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of 
the Mediterranean region "is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought." First of all, I 
don't think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural 
confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about 
themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: 
A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic 
world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I 
greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a "laboratory." Unfortunately, 
Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas. 

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: "Belgium is the laboratory of European 
unification." What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks 
about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes. 

In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. 
Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in 
social engineering, and believes this population replacement "is an impressive and unique 
development from a European, or even a world perspective." Yes, it is probably the first time in 
human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without 
firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won't be the last . The European 
Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that. 

The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive 
experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor 
lives in some kind of alternate reality where "Europe's affluence and free speech" will create an 
Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is 
slowly, but surely destroying the latter: 

"When I'm feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined 
towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and 
then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but 
basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues." 

What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, 
dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I'm sure Theo van Gogh would 
be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for 
having "insulted" Islam, along with that of the "racist" Pirn Fortuyn the first political murder in 
Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being 
ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? 
These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn't call off the entire 
Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks. 


We all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the 
Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. 
Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? 
Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks 
were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled 
themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same 
texts were later studied with great interest in the West. 

Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam's 
hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for 
instance. If you believe in evolution, isn't it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved 
than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn't it? 

British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than 
arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it 
turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism. 

According to the writer Melanie Phillips , "He is driven by a universalist world view which 
minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions 
belong essentially to a primitive past. (...) Hence his closely-related obsession with 'universal' 
human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass 
immigration is a good thing and that Britain's unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. 
This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What 
a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations 
that create and sustain it." 

Marie Simonsen , the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in 
March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to 
migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global 
population growth of several billion people to 2050. 

It doesn't take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny 
Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. 
Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an 
afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which 
could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact 
that our death as a people is already inevitable. 

Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let's assume for a 
moment that a country can be treated as the "property" of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible 
for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, 
universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its 
people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this 
country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created? 

According to Marxist logic, yes. 

Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a 
period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of 
children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants 
live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. 
One day they decide to move to their neighbors'. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, 


but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they 
say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is "racist" 
and "against international law" for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, 
House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B. 

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by 
importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free 
to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is 
"racism, xenophobia and bigotry," is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead 
to immense human suffering. 

One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was 
now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, 
discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the 
universities to the media. While the "hard" Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at 
least for now, the "soft" Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because 
we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening. 

Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public 
discourse. By hiding behind labels such as "anti-racism" and "tolerance," Leftists have achieved a 
degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was 
to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations. 

According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut , "the lofty idea of 'the war on racism' is 
gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century 
what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence." 

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he 
was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost . Boot 
believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the 
people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy , the government of the word, by the 
word and for the word. 

In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most 
fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the 
highest virtue and "discrimination" is a mortal sin, the "racist" is the worst of creatures. Those who 
control the definition of "racist," the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they 
can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin 
lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal. 

Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations 
dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to 
mass immigration as "racism," they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as 
that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it. 

Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood: 

"Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either 
were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx 
never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. [...] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a 
scientist. [...] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even 
Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, 


the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the 
nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin's Russia of the 1930s fell short 
of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands [...] Really, 
compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family 
should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, 
Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and 
Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it." 

The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy , who has warned that the European Union is on its 
way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military 
sense, we lost it in the context of ideas : "Communism might have been dead, but the communists 
remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators 
came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the 
defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a 
defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically" 

Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to 
the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have 
been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to 
stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric 
Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, 
tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced 
equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably 
lead to a totalitarian society. There is no "enlightened Marxism," and the idea that there is has 
ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history. 

Marxism is an organized crime against humanity. 

The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if 
there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western 
weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad . Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply 
damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides' writings about The 
History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC: 

"Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made 
by men and, instead of being 'absolved of blame', men are responsible for the consequences of their 
actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides' study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate 
of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and 
social organisation." 

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know 
that. It's time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are 
not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to 
be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of 
transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: 
A Communism for the 21st century. 


The flaws of the western man 

Monday, May 2 1,2007 

There are two different camps among those concerned with the problems of the modern West: 
Those who ascribe them to a powerful and influential minority who champion certain ideologies, 
and those who ascribe them to a lack of cultural confidence and structural, religious and 
metaphysical problems in the West in general. I personally see some evidence to support both these 
explanations . 

An alliance of left-wingers and right-wingers, or transnational progressives and transnational 
capitalists as John Fonte would have said, is undermining the nation state. It is more than a little 
ironic that Socialists are squarely on the side of the super-rich in desiring open borders. There is 
plenty of evidence that mass immigration has been promoted by cultural and political elites, and 
that opposition to this has been silenced with sometimes quite repressive means. 

The Netherlands was much less thrilled about Multiculturalism than was generally assumed in 
elitist circles well before 2002. The media and the politicians drew a picture that simply didn't 
correspond to reality. Maverick politician Pirn Fortuyn only brought popular discontent to the 
surface, three sociologists at the Radboud University in Nijmegen concluded. "The positive image 
that almost all the Dutch had the same tolerant attitude to minorities as the 'well-thinking' section of 
the nation" (as the political and media elite are often described) was kept alive for a long time," the 
sociologists maintain. 

I do not dispute the fact that there has been a general breakdown of cultural confidence in the West 
and in Europe, but I do dispute the claim that this has translated into a generally shared death wish 
where the masses happily embrace their own eradication. The prevalence of hate speech laws and 
censorship is a strong indication of the contrary. Still, let us have a look at some structural flaws in 
the West. 

As Euripides said: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Well, the West is 
currently stark, raving mad, and sometimes actively hates itself. I'm scratching my head trying to 
find out where this self-loathing comes from. Maybe we feel guilty because we are so successful 
and rich and accomplished that we just can't take it anymore. But where do such ideas about guilt 
originate from? I suspect they are somehow related to the Judeo-Christian strand of the West. They 
do not stem from the Greco-Roman or Germanic ones. Bad things could be said about Julius 
Caesar, but suicidal guilt definitely wasn't his major problem. Maybe we need a touch of Roman 
ruthlessness as well as Christian compassion. But Western self-loathing is frequently directed 
against Christianity, and that is somewhat puzzling if we assume that it emanates from Christianity. 

What is Multiculturalism? There is probably a new Great Idea for every generation. It changes just 
enough for people to be duped again, but it always entails some form of large-scale change for 
millions of people. The less it corresponds to reality, the better. The point is to outbid others in 
Utopian ideas. What is behind it? Well, the joy of destroying the Established Order to bring purpose 
into otherwise purposeless lives and the desire to immerse oneself into grandiose ideas. The desire 
for personal power and the joy of being able to harass opponents shouldn't be underestimated, 
either. If you claim that your Utopian ideas are about justice and equality, you can also claim that 
those who disagree with you are proponents of injustice and inequality, in other words evil, and 
outside the boundaries of civilized debate. 


One should always be mindful of people who profess an ideology that entails sweeping changes to 
society, claim that this represents the unstoppable tide of history, and yet for some reason need to 
shut down critics through intimidation. If their ideology is so great, how come they are so reluctant 
to accept criticism? Good ideas can be rationally defended. If people resist critical scrutiny of their 
ideas, this is usually a powerful indication of the fact that these ideas are neither truthful nor 

Can our democratic system survive the 21st century? Both Western and non- Western examples of 
early forms of direct democracy exist. Germanic societies, especially among the Nordic nations, had 
regional governing assemblies called ting already in the Middle Ages. Some of the parliaments in 
these countries, the Althing on Iceland, the Folketing in Denmark and the Storting in Norway, have 
retained this legacy in their names. Still, by far the most influential example, where the word 
"democracy" itself was originally coined, was the ancient Greek city-state of Athens. The Athenian 
democracy included the practice of ostracism, in which a citizen could be expelled for a decade 
under pain of death, and without a trial. 

One person in democratic Athens who did face a trial, however, was Socrates, whom the oracle at 
Delphi had supposedly claimed was the wisest man alive. He was found guilty of corrupting the 
youth and drank the poisonous hemlock. The trial made a lasting impression on his disciple Plato, 
who concluded that a political system where a great man such as Socrates, who challenged people 
to think for themselves, could be sentenced for speaking his mind was an unjust system. 

Plato may have been overly critical of democracy, but he wasn't entirely wrong. Suppression of 
dissenters asking legitimate but bothersome questions about sensitive matters has remained a 
problem in democratic societies to this day. Democracy does not always ensure that wise people are 
allowed to be heard or that bad ideas are not implemented, as can clearly be seen in the case of 
Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration in the West. In hindsight, it is easy to notice that 
sweeping and possibly irreversible changes were implemented without proper debate. Those who 
objected were simply ignored or harassed into silence. 

Securing the right to individual freedom of speech, as the US Founding Fathers did in the Bill of 
Rights, is a necessary step to remedy this flaw, but there are other forms of indirect censorship that 
may prove more difficult to combat. The culture of debate, which is absolutely essential for politics 
of reason to be possible, has been declining in the West for decades into a shouting match where the 
most aggressive groups frequently win. 

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French author of the classic book Democracy in America , was surprised 
at how religious average Americans were, and linked the culture of democracy there partly to its 
religious base. In an interview with FrontPage Magazine, Hugh Brogan tells about his new book 
about de Tocqueville. Tocqueville was afraid that individual self-respect might succumb to the 
pressures of majoritarian conformism in the democratic system. 

According to Brogan , "He would, I think, admit that in Democracy in America he should have 
recognised, even in 1835, the importance of lobbies and pressure-groups; and would find their 
fantastic power, based on the commercial manipulation of public opinion, quite unacceptable. His 
first and last principle was that you cannot have law without liberty or liberty without law, and these 
were his two supreme values." 

One of the challenges de Tocqueville didn't deal with was the rising power of the Fourth Estate, the 
press, which has become so powerful that it dominates the three official branches of government. 


One of the pitfalls in our modern, complicated and fast-changing society is that we are bombarded 
with such large amounts of information every single day that it is hard to decide which information 
is important and which is not. We have to rely on "gatekeepers" to filter out important information, 
and if those "gatekeepers," the mass media, are heavily infiltrated by people with an anti-Western 
agenda, this creates very serious problems. 

The writer Christopher Lasch in his book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy 
from the 1990s talks about how certain elite groups such as lawyers, academics and journalists 
threaten the democratic system by cutting themselves off from their own people. They all make a 
living from treating words and information as commodities, and the market for these commodities 
is increasingly international. He also warns against the consequences of the breakdown of religion. 

I have recently started to fear that our democratic system, as it is currently fashioned, cannot survive 
this century. Cynically speaking, there are two basic tasks a government needs to perform in order 
to claim legitimacy for collecting taxes: 

1 . Keep criminals off the streets and maintain public order, so citizens can go about their affairs 
and conduct trade in reasonable safety. If this fails, and if ordinary citizens do not feel a 
minimum amount of security for their lives and property, trade and investments suffer, and the 
economy breaks down. 

2. Uphold the territorial integrity of the country, and defend its borders and its citizens against 
external threats. 

Right now, governments all over the Western world are performing poorly on the former, and failing 
abysmally on the latter, while still collecting obscene amounts of taxes. This situation simply isn't 
sustainable for much longer. Our nations need to regain control over our own borders. The problem 
is, we are faced with the most massive migration waves in the history of mankind, at the same time 
as international law and human rights fundamentalism is crippling our ability to maintain our 
integrity, and while our political and business elites care less and less about their own people. 

Have we reached the end of the Golden Age of governments accountable to the people? I hope not, 
but we have to make significant changes to the system to make it work, and I must admit that I 
cannot yet envision how all of these changes will look like, nor how we will go about to get them 

I have debated the issue of Vikings vs. Muslims with some 
Scandinavians. Some have claimed that they were the Al-Qaida of 
medieval Europe. But Vikings valued truth and keeping their word to 
maintain their honor, instead of saving face. They had blood feuds, kept 
slaves and raided the Christians of Europe. Yet even though the Vikings 
could be brutal ("Thou shalt not kill" is a Christian concept), they still 
had an honor codex that was tied to acts of courage. 

I've seen many examples of gangs of Muslim immigrants attacking lone victims, homeless people, 
handicapped people, etc. I'm not sure the Vikings would have done that. Not necessarily because it 
was wrong to use violence, but because the manner would have been dishonorable. Which means 
that we were superior to Muslims even during our most barbarian periods. Besides, most of us have 
evolved from such brutality. Muslims haven't. 


Scandinavian women also enjoyed far greater freedom than Muslim women in the pre-Christian 
Viking Age, which they retained in the Christian period afterwards. 

According to Bernard Lewis in his book What Went Wrong? , "The difference in the position of 
women was indeed one of the most striking contrasts between Christian and Muslim practice, and is 
mentioned by almost all travelers in both directions. Christianity, of all churches and 
denominations, prohibits polygamy and concubinage. Islam, like most other non-Christian 
communities, permits both. (...) Muslim visitors to Europe speak with astonishment, often with 
horror, of the immodesty and forwardness of Western women, of the incredible freedom and absurd 
deference accorded to them, and of the lack of manly jealousy of European males confronted with 
the immorality and promiscuity in which their womenfolk indulge." 

This is all good, and we should be proud of it. But we now have a situation where men and women 
are presented not just as equal but as identical. At the same time women are implicitly and 
sometimes explicitly treated as better than men. This same illogical double standard mirrors that of 
Multiculturalism, where all cultures are equal yet Western culture is evil. 

The Chinese talk about yin and yang, the feminine and the masculine aspects of nature, which are 
complementary and should ideally be in a state of balance. In modern Scandinavia, we have yin in 
abundance, but will shame yang and make him feel guilty for existing if he ever shows up. But a 
society cannot survive without an element of traditional masculinity. 

As the columnist Jack Kelly says, "It is the soldier, not the priest, who protects freedom of religion; 
the soldier, not the journalist, who protects freedom of speech. History teaches that a society that 
does not value its warriors will be destroyed by a society that does." 

As I've demonstrated before , the ancient Greeks were pioneers in accurately depicting real life in 
arts. In modern times, linear perspective was developed during the Italian Renaissance, starting with 
Giotto, but developed fully in the early 15th century into the geometrical method of perspective by 
Filippo Brunelleschi. Something similar had never been produced by any other artistic tradition, be 
it Chinese, Indian or Middle Eastern. This totally different view of art probably reflected a totally 
different view of the world in general, and a break with previous traditions and authorities. 

Leonardo da Vinci studied nature scientifically and used his own eyes to ensure that his work 
corresponded to reality as accurately as possible. This can be seen in his studies of the proportions 
of the human body depicted in his famous drawing The Vitruvian Man. He went beyond the 
authority of tradition and past masters, which is why the lady portrayed in the Mona Lisa looks so 
amazingly lifelike. This mentality is why the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions took place in the 

In the early 16th century, writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli and painters such as Leonardo da 
Vinci were trying to describe the world as it actually is. In the early 21st century, Westerners have 
abandoned any pretense of doing so, and are instead living in an imaginary reality of how an ideal 
world should be. We could perhaps learn a thing or two from our ancestors. But is it conceivable 
that this Western desire to experiment, to disregard tradition and go beyond what has been done in 
the past can also in some cases be a flaw? 

Maybe some of those traits which previously used to be our greatest assets, such as our respect for 
women, for human rights, individual freedom and our openness to outsiders have been carried into 
such extremes that they have become liabilities. Perhaps even initially good ideas can turn bad if 
practiced without moderation. The key word, which we seem to have forgotten, is "balance." 
According to a conservative Swedish friend of mine, many of the seemingly crazy excesses now on 


display are not so much a perversion of Western civilization as a fulfillment of it. What has 
happened is that Westerners have carried many of the seeds of our culture into their theoretical (and 
extreme) limits. This has left us confused; we have fulfilled our civilizational mission, and don't 
know what to do next. 

The Canadian writer Naomi Klein believes that the terror attacks of September 11th 2001 were 
caused by Western racism. On the contrary, they were triggered by excessive anti-racism. If you 
believe the story of Michael Tuoheya , a former U.S. Airways ticket agent, he checked in terrorist 
leader Muhammad Atta for a flight that day. According to Tuoheya, "I said to myself, 'If this guy 
doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in 
this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this." Atta joined three other hijackers and crashed 
into one of the World Trade Center's towers in New York City. 

Modern Westerners are increasingly unwilling to risk our lives for anything, but we are willing to 
die for anti-discrimination any day. Anti-racism is the new God, an angry God requiring your 
unquestioned submission and if necessary death — a bit like Allah, incidentally. 

It is possible to view the history of the West as one of freeing oneself from the constraints of the 
past, and of granting equality to ever-expanding circles of people, starting with universal suffrage 
for men, later for women, then equality for all ethnic, religious and sexual subgroups and eventually 
even for non-citizens and enemies. The West has led the world in innovation for centuries. Yet 
perhaps this disposition, which has been the Western Man's greatest strength, can also be his curse. 
Perhaps he sometimes breaks down restraints that are needed, and insists on equality where no 
equality naturally exists. His self-image has been to question tradition on every level, to always 
move forward. The Western Man has freed himself from the restraints of his traditions, his religion, 
his culture and the memories of his past. More recently, he has also rid himself off his sex, his skin 
color, his very physical being. He is, in essence, nothing, and is thus constrained by nothing. The 
Western Man is thus free at least. 

The Western man was the first to create parliamentary democracy, the first to reach the North and 
the South Pole and the first to travel to the Moon. He always likes to go where no man has gone 
before him. The sad thing is that there is now so little unchartered territory, so few boundaries left to 
breach. What to do? Well, embracing organized national suicide is something no man has ever done 
before, presumably for very good reasons. The Western Man smells an opportunity to once again 
lead mankind into unchartered territory, and boldly seizes it. He may not be sensible, but at least 
he's first, and to the Western Man, that is what matters above all else. 


What is the cause of low birth rates? 

Monday, May 28, 2007 

What causes low birth rates? I have debated this issue at some length with blogger Conservative 
Swede . Among the reasons frequently cited are the welfare state, feminism and secularism. 
However, if you look closely at the statistics from various countries, the picture gets quite complex, 
and there doesn't appear to be an automatic correlation between low birth rates and any one of these 

The United States has the highest birth rates in the West, but this is largely due to ethnic minorities. 
If you compare white Americans to white Europeans, the American birth rate is somewhat higher 
than those of the Scandinavian nanny states, but still lower than replacement level. Scandinavian 
countries such as Norway and Sweden do have elaborate welfare states, high degrees of feminism 
and are not very religious, yet have some of the highest birth rates in the Western world (though still 
below replacement level.) They are certainly much higher than those in Catholic Poland, perhaps 
the most conservative religious country in Europe. And they are much higher than those of South 
Korea, which has more traditional sex roles and where Christianity is booming these days. 

The gap between the Western world and the Islamic world in birth rates is clearly caused by 
religious factors, but the differences between industrialized nations are far more difficult to explain. 
If the cause is not welfarism, feminism or secularism, then what is it? 

Making moms: Can we feed the need to breed? Canada has a baby deficit. Will paying women 
to have more kids help? 

How strange, then, that just as the mommy industry is booming, we're in the grips of a 
baby bust. Canada's fertility rate has been in a free fall for decades. In recent years, 
though, it has hovered at an all-time low of roughly 1.5 children per woman (we need 
2.1 if we're going to replace ourselves). Social analysts pin it on some jumble of female 
education and fiscal autonomy, secularization, birth control, Sex and the City, a 
heightened desire for personal freedom, and increasing uncertainty about bringing a 
child into a world plagued by terrorism, global warming and Lindsay Lohan. In a hyper- 
individualistic, ultra-commodified culture like ours, motherhood, for better and worse, 
is less a fact of life than just another lifestyle choice. 

All over the developed world, the same pattern is apparent. Russia, Britain, Ireland, 
Australia, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries are contending with fertility rates 
well below replacement levels. Forty per cent of female university graduates in 
Germany are childless. In Japan, where the birth rate has sunk to a record low of 1 .26, 
family planning groups are blaming the Internet, charging that fertile men and women 
are spending too much time online, and not enough having sex. 

Making Kids Worthless: Social Security's Contribution to the Fertility Crisis 

Many people nowadays find it hard to see why anyone would have children for the sake 
of old-age security. Surely, they think, people have children just because they like it. 
Still, they often hear people say they would like to have more children, but they cannot 
afford it. Moreover, people in less developed countries seem to afford large families, 
even though their real incomes barely reach subsistence levels. 


What can account for these seemingly conflicting observations? The fact that in the 
absence of social security, the extended family is an informal social insurance 
mechanism that renders childbearing economically beneficial. But in countries with 
large social security systems, people no longer have an old-age security motive for 
fertility, precisely because social security has made fertility economically unwise. 

Of course, social security is not the only reason for declining fertility rates. For one 
thing, the welfare state undermines the family in many other ways too, such as 
compulsory public education that seeks to replace family loyalty with allegiance to the 
state. Moreover, the old-age security motive for fertility should become weaker when 
other ways of providing for old age become available. . . 

One can also look at differences among the developed Western countries. Among these 
countries, there are practically no differences in infant mortality rates, female labor 
force participation rates, and other standard explanations of the fertility decline. Yet 
total fertility rates differ widely — and exactly in the way predicted by the size of social 
security systems. The United States has a fertility rate of 2.09, whereas the European 
Union has an average of 1.47. 

Also within Europe, where social security benefits are dangerously generous, there are 
differences among countries. Some of the most generous schemes are found in 
Germany, France, and the Mediterranean countries — as are the lowest fertility rates in 
the region. On the surface, it is surprising to find this in countries that used to be family- 
oriented and fervently Catholic. However, economic incentives shape behavior, and 
behavior shapes culture. . . 

The best solution is also the simplest: get the state out of the way. 

Death by secularism: Some statistical evidence 

Infertility is killing off the secular world, a number of writers have observed, including 
Phillip Longman, whose 1994 book The Empty Cradle I reviewed last year. In the 
former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United 
Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the 
Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine. Secular western Europe will lose 4% 
to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States 
continues to grow. Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise. 

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality, I 
have argue in the past. In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive 
torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly 
enough to the death of society itself. 

Why Europe chooses extinction 

Demographics is destiny. Never in recorded history have prosperous and peaceful 
nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is what the Europeans 
have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black Death, a combination of 
bubonic plague and likely a form of mad cow disease, observes American Enterprise 
Institute scholar Ben Wattenberg. "The plague reduced the estimated European 


population by about a third. In the next 50 years, Europe's population will relive — in 
slow motion — that plague demography, losing about a fifth of its population by 2050 
and more as the decades roll on." 

Bring back that Old Time Religion 

[S]ecularism promotes a more short term and hedonistic attitude towards life. Since 
secular people have little faith in God or an after life, the tendency is for them to adopt 
the attitude of "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die". Of course, not all secular 
people are like that. But in general, secularism promotes such attitudes. 

Their time horizon is therefore their own lifetime. Religious people on the other hand 
are more long term. Their eyes are on eternity. If you go to Europe, you will come 
across many Cathedrals that took centuries to build. For example, Cologne Cathedral 
took more than 300 years to complete. 

Why did the Medieval Christians start a project that none of them would live to see its 
completion? The answer is that they look to the hereafter. Their desire was to please 
God and go to heaven. They say that faith can move mountains. Here a mountain of 
stone was literally moved to build the great Cathedrals of Europe. 

But what of the secular people in now post-Christian Europe? What are the economic 
consequences of people whose time frame is simply the rest of their lives? 

For a start, they (in general) want to enjoy their lives to the hilt. For some, this could 
mean early retirement with loss of still productive workers to the economy. For others, it 
could mean fewer or no children for children means responsibility and a tax on their 
resources which could be used to indulge themselves. Statistics from America have 
shown that regular church goers tend to have more children than those that seldom 
attend church. 


Why transnational multiculturalism is a totalitarian ideology 

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store recently participated in a conference with editors and 
journalists from all over the world on how to "report diversity" in a non-offensive manner, with 
Arab News from Saudi Arabia as one of the moderators. The Cartoon Jihad the year before had 
prompted Indonesia and Norway to join forces and promote a Global Inter-Media Dialogue. In June 
2007 this was held in Oslo. 

Agnes Callamard from free speech NGO Article 19 voiced her concern that it could prove difficult 
to implement the ideal of equal representation and visibility of all groups in society if we do not 
control what is presented in the media. Diversity — ethnic, cultural and religious — has to permeate 
the media if we are to succeed in promoting the Multicultural society. Article 19 is supposedly a 
human rights organization with a specific focus on the defense of freedom of expression. 
Callamard, its Executive Director, has according to their website "evolved a distinguished career in 
human rights and humanitarian work," formerly worked for fellow "human rights" NGO Amnesty 
International, has been published widely in the field of human rights and holds a Ph.D. in Political 

Keynote speaker at the conference, Dr. Doudou Diene, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on 
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, urged the media 
to actively participate in the creation of a Multicultural society, and expressed concerns that the 
democratic process could lead to immigration-restrictive parties gaining influence, and claimed that 
this has already happened in Switzerland and Denmark. Diene said that it is a dangerous 
development when increasing numbers of intellectuals in the West now believe that some cultures 
are better than others. 

According to the journalist Jens Tomas Anfindsen, this is yet another sign that Europe is moving in 
the direction of totalitarianism. When the facts on the ground can no longer frankly and honestly be 
reported by the media, one is basically left with two options: Do something with the undesirable 
facts, or pretend reality is different from what it is. The first option is necessary in order to preserve 
freedom. The second option is the road to dictatorship and totalitarian rule. Anfindsen thinks "there 
are already clear signs that large portions of mainstream media in Norway have been working 
according to UN instructions" long before his conference. In Britain, leading figures of the BBC 
have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. They don't even need the UN 
to tell them that. 

Also in 2007, Minister of Justice Knut Storberget said that the Norwegian Constitution Day, May 
17th, is for "everybody," and that it's appropriate to demonstrate this by displaying a multitude of 
flags and cultures. It is now permitted to celebrate it by waving the flag of the United Nations, and 
there are calls for translating the Norwegian national anthem into Urdu , just as there have been calls 
for translating the German national anthem to Turkish. Norwegians are supposed to celebrate their 
independence by singing their national anthem in Urdu, by wearing the national costume of Ghana 
and by waving the flag of the UN, an organization that is actively trying to curtail their freedoms 
and subvert their independence. This would be the equivalent of Americans celebrating the Fourth 
of July by waving the UN flag and by singing the Star-Spangled Banner in Arabic. 

Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union after Stalin, said to a Western audience that "We will 


bury you!" He was an honest enemy But school curricula can sometimes destroy a nation more 
efficiently than tanks, just as an enemy that does not openly state his end goals can sometimes be 
more dangerous than an honest enemy because it is more difficult to mobilize against him. The next 
Communism will not come from an open enemy armed with nuclear intercontinental missiles, it 
will come from a multitude of groups and ideas that may appear less threatening, but put together 
their impact could be disastrous. Multiculturalism, transnational progressivism, unlimited mass 
migration, NGOs, the UN, international law and anti-Western school curricula combined could 
create a situation where Western nations are no longer allowed to define their own laws, keep their 
cultures or defend their own countries. This threat comes from people who do not say "We will bury 
you," they hide behind kind words about diversity and tolerance. 

Marxists have been regrouping since their previous efforts failed, just as Muslims have been 
exploiting our inattention and complacency after the Cold War to infiltrate our society. I know 
Churchill viewed WW2 as a continuation of WW1. It is now less than a generation since the 
downfall of Communism in the East, yet another totalitarian ideology based on propaganda and 
media censorship is now raising its ugly head in the West. Is this just a coincidence, or is it possible 
that future generations will deem these two struggles to be somehow related? Did the downfall of 
the Soviet Union led to Communism being abandoned, or did it mutate into new forms? If so, will 
the downfall of the European Union, the EUSSR, lead to the collapse of Multiculturalism, or will 
the totalitarian ideology mutate once more? 

I just watched massive and sometimes violent demonstrations against a summit of the Group of 
Eight (G8), involving the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the 
United States. The demonstrators were presented as "anti-globalists," but I'm not sure whether that 
label is accurate because these individuals are not against all forms of globalization. They actively 
desire the globalization of migration and legislation, and they are at best indifferent towards the 
globalization of sharia. The only "globalization" they are against is the globalization of capital. 
They are against capitalism, not globalization. That being said, they did at least prove that 
Europeans still know how to demonstrate. It's sad, however, that Europeans appear to be more 
agitated over and willing to demonstrate against capitalism than against the Islamization of their 

If we assume that this emerging ideology of transnational Multiculturalism is a totalitarian ideology, 
we should remember that most totalitarian ideologies have a Villain Class, a group of evil 
oppressors that can be blamed for all the ills of society. If the ruling ideology falls somewhat short 
of producing the Perfect Society it has promised, this will be followed by even more passionate 
attacks on the Villain Class, be that the Jews, the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, etc. The Villain Class 
of Multiculturalism seems to be Western culture and persons who happen to be born with a white 
skin. Any problems will automatically be blamed on "white racism," which will ensue more 
suppression of free speech for whites. 

One of the hallmarks of a Villain Class is that its members can be verbally abused with impunity, 
and that they are increasingly physically harassed or even killed while the state seems in no rush to 
protect them from these assaults. The Villain Class is subject to public scorn and has de facto or 
even de jure less legal protection than other groups. They have their property and their culture 
stripped away from them, and any attempts to protest the policies or ideologies that are causing this 
will be met with even more repression. 

Consider the case of Sweden. Swedish radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called "I Will 
Never Give Birth to a White Man," for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, stating things such as 
"no white men, please. . . I just puke on them." After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish 
state prosecutor Goran Lambertz explained why this didn't qualify as racism: "The purpose behind 


the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of 
different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves 
in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be 
included in this law." 

The wave of robberies the city of Malmo has witnessed is part of a " war against Swedes. " This is 
the explanation openly given by robbers with immigrant background. At the same time, more 
natives are leaving Sweden than at any time since the 19th century. But in the 19th century, Swedes 
left Sweden because of poverty. They now leave because of persecution, because their country and 
their culture is systematically being taken away from them. Yet the Swedish state is doing next to 
nothing to protect the native population against this violence. On the contrary, it continues the 
policies that created these problems in the first place and bans opposition to this undertaking as 

Doesn't this mean that the Swedish state and its cultural elites are indirectly responsible for driving 
their own people away from their homes? I think it does, and I think future generations will view 
this policy as an example of pure evil. I also think they will find it difficult to understand how the 
Villain Class could in this case be the majority population, not a minority. There are several reasons 
for this, but I find it hard to believe whether this would have been possible without the incessant 
ridicule and demonization of whites and their culture that has now become an established part of the 
mainstream ideology. 


Why the European Union Must Go 

Wed, 2007-07-25 16:12 

At the EU Observer , Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, 
notes that in every EU member state at present the majority of laws come from Brussels. Why do 
national politicians and representatives accept this situation? He suggests a plausible explanation: 

"At national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the 
backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it 
means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national 
parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country. Shift the policy area in 
question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily 
by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a 
member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, 
making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what 
it does. 

"National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer 
have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand 
obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from 
members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national 
legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational." 

EU ministers see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making. By participating 
in the EU, they can also free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national 

According to Coughlan, "the great bulk of European laws are never debated at council of minister 
level, but are formally rubber-stamped if agreement has been reached further down amongst the 
civil servants on the 300 council sub-committees or the 3,000 or so committees that are attached to 
the commission." 

EU integration represents "a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by 
politicians against the citizens who elect them." This process is now sucking the reality of power 
from "traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact. They still keep 
their old names — parliament, government, supreme court — so that their citizens do not get too 
alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed." 

Tony Blair , in one of his final interviews as British PM, stated that "The British people are sensible 
enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don't expect their 
government necessarily to share it or act upon it." In other words: The British people should be 
sensible enough to know that their government will ignore their wishes and interests if it deems this 
appropriate, as it frequently has in its immigration policies. 

The European Union is basically an attempt - a rather successful one so far - by the elites in 
European nation states to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and eventually abolishing the 
democratic system, a slow-motion coup d'etat. Ideas such as "promoting peace" are used as a 
pretext for this, a bone to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab. It 
works because the national parliaments still appear to be functioning as before. 

This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the EU: It is increasingly dictatorial, but it is a stealth 
dictatorship, whose most dangerous elements are largely invisible in everyday life. What the 
average person sees is that the EU makes it easier for him to travel to other countries without a 


passport, and use the same Euro currency from Arctic Lapland in Finland to Spain's Canary Islands 
off the African coast. 

This appears convenient, and on some level it is. But it comes at the price of hollowing out the 
power of elected institutions and placing it into the hands of an unelected oligarchy conspiring to 
usurp ever more power and rearrange the lives of half a billion people without their consent. That's 
a steep price to pay for a common currency. But people do not clearly see this is their daily lives, 
and seeing is believing. The enemy that clearly identifies himself as such is sometimes less 
dangerous than the enemy who is diffused and vague, since you cannot easily mobilize against him. 

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he 
was seeking was no longer there. Boot believes that democracy , or in the words of Abraham 
Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by 
glossocracy , the government of the word, by the word and for the word. 

Glossocracy can be traced back at least to the slogan of the French Revolution in 1789, "Freedom, 
equality, brotherhood." As it turned out, this meant mass terror, martial law and authoritarian rule. 
The more meaningless the word, the more useful it is for glossocrats. This is why the notion of 
Multiculturalism has been so useful, since it sounds vaguely positive, but ambiguous and could be 
used to cover up vast changes implemented with little public debate. The impulse behind Political 
Correctness consists of twisting the language we use, enforcing new words or changing the meaning 
of old ones, turning them into "weapons of crowd control" by demonizing those who fail to comply 
with the new definitions. The European Union, a French-led enterprise, is currently the world's pre- 
eminent and most unadulterated glossocracy. 

According to Boot, a dictator whose power is based on bullets is afraid of bullets. A glossocrat 
whose power is based on words is afraid of words. The EU has drawn up guidelines advising 
government spokesmen to use "non-offensive" phrases when talking about terrorism. The word 
Jihad should preferably not be used at all, or should be explained as a misunderstood term meaning 
peaceful struggle against oneself. These recommendations are being implemented. British Prime 
Minister Gordon Brown , in an attempt to avoid offending Muslims, in the summer of 2007 banned 
his ministers from mentioning "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same breath, following attempted 
terror attacks staged by Muslims - including several medical doctors - in Glasgow and London. 

To quote Paul Fregosi's book Jihad in the West : "The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has 
been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years, 
but this is the first history of the Muslim wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, 
however, have appeared on its Christian counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often 
compared, although they lasted less than two hundred years and unlike the Jihad , which is universal, 
were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land. Moreover, the Crusades have been over 
for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the world. The Jihad has been the most 
unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored. For 
instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the Crusades eighty times more space than the Jihad." 

At the same time as the memory of 1300 years of almost continuous Jihad warfare and Islamic 
aggression is gradually being erased from Western school textbooks, "Islamophobia" is being 
promoted as a serious challenge. By substituting "Jihad" with "Islamophobia," emphasis is moved 
from Europeans defending themselves against Islamic violence to innocent Muslims suffering from 
prejudice and racism. An alternate word thus creates an alternate reality. 

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano , apparently afraid of what he perceives as growing opposition 
to the EU project, thinks Eurosceptics are "psychological terrorists." So, European leaders won't use 
the word "terrorist" about Muslims supporting suicide bombers, but they have finally found 
somebody deserving the label: Europeans who oppose the EU. 

In a frank moment, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's PM, once described the EU's "system" in 
this way: "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one 


kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by 
step until there is no turning back." In The Economist, columnist Charlemagne writes: "What Mr 
Juncker and those who think like him are trying to do is, in essence, to drown opposition to 
European federation in a mass of technical detail, to bore people into submission. As a strategy, it 
has gone a long way. The greatest single transfer of sovereignty from Europe's nations to the 
European Union took place, in 1985, as part of the project to create a single European market. Even 
[British Conservative PM] Margaret Thatcher, not usually slow to spot a trick, later claimed that she 
had not fully appreciated the ramifications of what she was then signing up to." 

In 2005 (and again in 2006), the EU's financial watchdog refused to approve the EU's accounts for 
the 11th year in a row because they were so full of fraud. The European Court of Auditors refused to 
give a statement of assurance on the EU's $160.3 billion budget for 2004. "The vast majority of the 
payment budget was again materially affected by errors of legality and regularity," it said. It 
specifically refused to approve the budgets for the EU's foreign policy and aid programs, many of 
which are geared towards Arab and Muslim countries. Half of the project budgets approved by the 
European Commission were inadequately monitored. 

This story of fraudulence was largely ignored by the media. The EU Commission is the government 
of half a billion people from Hungary to Britain and from Finland to Spain, yet it can release 
accounts with massive flaws for over a decade straight. Such a lack of oversight would have been 
unthinkable in the USA. The EU gets away with it because it appears distant in people's everyday 
life and is not subject to any real checks and balances. 

The EU Commission, frequently diffused through a complicated web of innocent-sounding 
organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them as federal EU policy. 
This is accomplished because billions of Euros are floating around in a system with little outside 
control, and with a few powerful individuals and groups pulling the strings. Europeans are thus 
financing their continent's merger with, in reality colonization by, the Muslim world without their 
knowledge and without their consent. It must be the first time in human history where an entire 
continent is being culturally eradicated with bureaucratic precision. This represents perhaps the 
greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet is still largely ignored by the mainstream 
media in most Western nations. 

EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national 
sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow Commissioners also 
issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second 
World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. They gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold 
War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States. 

This is preposterous. The European Union in fact has a lot more in common with totalitarian 
regimes such as Nazi Germany - and the Soviet Union - than the supposedly evil nation states it 
seeks to replace, especially its tendency to suppress freedom of speech, indoctrinate school children 
with blatantly false information and impose decisions upon its subjects without their consent. 

A conference on Racism, Xenophobia and the Media in Vienna in May 2006 was coordinated by the 
EU. By the end of 2006, the network of media practitioners involved in the Euro-Arab Dialogue had 
grown to over 500 (pdf). These included people, media and organizations from all 37 countries of 
the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. European and Arab journalists produced dozens of 
recommendations on how to enhance their cooperation and promote "mutual understanding" 
between their cultures and religions in the media. Benita Ferrero-Waldner , European Commissioner 
for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (read: Eurabian affairs), addressed the 
assembly of journalists. According to her, "we do not believe the media should be regulated from 
outside, but rather that you find ways to regulate yourselves. (...) 2008 is the European Year of 
Intercultural Dialogue, and I am determined that by then we will have made significant 
improvements in the level of mutual respect and understanding our communities have for one 
another. In the months and years to come we must reach beyond the elites to the man and woman on 


the street. That is a vital part of the fight against racism and xenophobia. And you will be the key to 
achieving that." 

This document is available on the Internet, but I doubt most Europeans have heard about it. Ferrero- 
Waldner also stated that "Freedom of expression is not the freedom to insult or offend. Hate speech 
is always abhorrent." The EU has in numerous agreements with Muslim countries made it clear that 
Islamophobia is a form of racism. 

The EU in 2007 made incitement to racism and xenophobia a crime across the 27-nation bloc. 
Under the new law, offenders will face up to three years in jail for "public incitement to violence or 
hatred, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to 
race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." The term "inciting hatred" against 
"religion" could be used to silence critics of Islam and Muslim immigration, especially since the 
Council of Europe has earlier decided to view Islamophobia as equal to anti-Semitism. At the same 
time as the EU is signing agreements enhancing the cooperation with, including immigration of, 
Arabs and Muslims, it is banning opposition to this and is co-opting the media into toeing the party 
line and promoting the official, Eurabian ideology. The European Union thus increasingly exhibits 
many of the hallmarks of a totalitarian state, a pan-European dictatorship. 

As Robert Spencer commented at Jihad Watch , "Soon Eurabia will resemble the old Soviet Union, 
in which dissidents furtively distributed samizdat literature and faced stiff penalties if the authorities 
discovered what they were doing. Europeans who care about what is happening to them will have to 
travel West, buy books that tell the truth about Islamic jihad, and distribute them at home away from 
the watchful eye of EU bureaucrats." 

The Eurabian networks were created against a backdrop of Arab Jihad terrorism. A series of 
hijackings and attacks, many of them approved by PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who later received the 
Nobel Peace Prize from my country, were carried out in the 1970s. Arafat was awarded for this by 
being allowed to address the United Nations general assembly. During the Palestinian hijacking of 
Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro in 1985, American plans for a rescue were thwarted by the 
Italian government whose "foreign policy required it to maintain very close relations with the Arab 
states and the PLO," according to Philip Heymann, former US deputy attorney-general. 

As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says: "The international community responded to 
terrorism between 1968 and 2001 by rewarding and legitimising it, rather than punishing and 
condemning it. Seen in this light, it is no wonder we had to suffer the horrors of September 11, 
2001. Those who bestowed these benefits on the Palestinians following their terrorism, especially 
our European allies and the UN, made September 11 unavoidable." 

I must take issue with Mr. Dershowitz here: I have heard Americans state that Muslims should like 
the United States, since Americans have tended to side with Muslims in many conflicts around the 
world during the past decades. That is actually true, and it is not something Americans should brag 
about. The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 was grossly mishandled by Western leaders, ranging 
from US President Jimmy Carter to French President Valery Giscard dEstaing, as well as Western 
left-leaning intellectuals and media. Likewise, the reactions to the death threats made by the same 
regime a decade later against Salman Rushdie met with a muted response. The Oslo Peace Process 
in the 1990s as well as the Balkan wars, where the United States and NATO actively intervened on 
behalf of Muslims, firmly established the impression in Muslim minds of a decadent civilization no 
longer willing or able to defend itself. 


It was clearly perceived Western weakness, not aggression, which led to the terror attacks of 9/11, 
and Americans themselves made significant contributions to this. Even otherwise good presidents 
such as Ronald Reagan never fully understood how to deal with Muslims. Still, even though 
Americans made contributions to this problem, too, which they did, it is undeniable that Western 
appeasement of Muslims started with Western European surrender to Arab physical and financial 
(oil embargo) terrorism in the 1970s and became institutionalized through the Euro-Arab Dialogue. 
This appeasement contributed to the resurgence of Jihad that now spans several continents. 

The European Union is by its advocates presented as an organization devoted to promoting "peace." 
The EU never had anything to do with peace; it was and is a naked power grab by European elites 
who have used it to wage a cultural and demographic war against the very peoples and nations they 
were supposed to represent. Their appeasement of Muslims not only constitutes a threat to the 
survival of Europe, which it certainly does, it has destabilized the situation far beyond the borders 
of Europe. The Euro-Arab cooperation thus represents a threat to world peace. And since this 
cooperation has become a deeply entrenched feature of the EU, this leads to only one possible 
conclusion: The European Union must be dismantled as soon as possible. 

PS: Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy fears that the European Union is on its way to 
becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech, he called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed: 
"The sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have 
done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very 
fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on 
Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas." 

The organization Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE) has received permission to stage a_ 
demonstration in Brussels against the Islamization of Europe this September 11th. Whether there 
will be one million demonstrators is doubtful, but it should be possible to gather enough people to 
get noticed. Citizens of Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Italy or 
any other EU member state concerned with Islamic inroads in their country should turn up and 

Since the Islamization of Europe is actively and deliberately championed by the EU on a daily 
basis, fighting Islamization is in my view inseparable from fighting the EU itself. At the very least, 
demonstrators should carry banners advocating abolishing the Euro-Arab Dialogue, dismantling the 
Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for 
the Dialogue between Cultures as well as all other instruments for Euro-Mediterranean and 
Eurabian cooperation. The EU should ban all direct or indirect aid to the Palestinians and distribute 
this to the defense of our civilizational cousin Israel, it should cease promoting a blatantly false 
view of Islamic Jihad during 1300 years in European schools and it should immediately halt all 
talks with Turkey regarding EU membership. Enough is enough. 


A Culture of Lies 

Thu, 2007-07-26 18:09 

The always excellent writer Theodore Dalrymple , one of the most astute observers of Britain and 
indeed of the Western world today, has assessed the ten years under the leadership of former PM 
Tony Blair . According to Dalrymple , "Many in Britain believe that he has been the worst prime 
minister in recent British history, morally and possibly financially corrupt, shallow and egotistical." 
One of the reasons for this negative view is the rapid growth of insecurity, ironically combined with 
the even more rapid growth of surveillance: "The typical Briton finds himself recorded by security 
cameras 300 times a day does not secure him in the slightest from crime or antisocial behavior, 
which remain prevalent in Britain, so no one feels any safer from the terrorist threat despite the 
ever-increasing government surveillance." 

British citizens pay obscenely large amounts of taxes, but get less and less in return for this, except 
an increasingly hostile state: "The National Health Service, where bureaucracies have hugely 
expanded and entwined their interests so closely with those of private suppliers and consultancies 
that it is difficult to distinguish public from private any longer. Spending on the NHS has increased 
by two and a half times in the space of 10 years; yet it is hard to see any corresponding 
improvement in the service, other than in the standard of living of those who work in it." 

He believes the inadequacies of the state are hidden beneath a web of lies of half-truths, and by 
confusing the public through corrupting official statistics. Unemployment rates are artificially kept 
down by classifying people as sick rather than unemployed, "and thus, by a single lie, is the 
population, the medical profession and the government corrupted." Likewise, crime rates are kept 
down by encouraging the police not to record crimes. Through such measures, "the whole of society 
finds itself corrupted and infantilized by its inability to talk straight." 

Dalrymple states that "We have come to expect dishonesty - of which this little lie was an example 
- at every level of society. The dishonesty is intellectual, moral and financial, and its root is self- 
interest conceived in the narrowest possible way. In modern Britain, probity is foolishness or, worse 
still, naivety." He believes this corrupts the entire fabric of society : "When dignity requires 
illegality, there is something rotten in the state." 

The media and the authorities have been deceiving the public for decades about Multiculturalism, 
EU integration and the true cost of Muslim immigration. Thus a culture of lies and moral and 
financial corruption is cultivated. It starts at the top and spreads downwards. If the state lies, cheats 
and collects money for services it fails to provide, why can't average citizens do the same thing? 

According to Dalrymple , "Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of 
communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to 
persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to 
reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most 
obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and 
for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small 
way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A 
society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the 
same effect and is intended to." 

Polish writer Nina Witoszek warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck 
by a strange feeling of deja vu regarding the censorship autopilot in Western Europe: "Soon we 
shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as 
'dialogue,' 'pluralism,' 'reconciliation' and 'equality' [...] We prefer safety above freedom. This is 
the first step towards a voluntary bondage." 


She quotes Polish writer Czeslaw Milosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature for books such as 
The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology. One essay by 
Milosz is titled "Ketman," an Islamic term brought to Milosz's attention by Arthur Gobineau, who 
had noticed that the dissidents in Persia had evolved a strategy of dissimulation, which involved not 
just keeping your mouth shut, but actively lying in every way necessary. According to Milosz, a 
very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Those practicing dissimulation felt a sense 
of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. 

When people who grew up in Communist societies are asked about what they hated the most about 
their situation, many of them will answer: The lies . This practice of systematically lying every 
single day, of placing no importance on the value of truth and of despising those who are stupid 
enough to tell their real opinions is the hallmark of totalitarian societies, and it is now spreading in 
the supposedly free West. This suits Muslims, accustomed to living in authoritarian societies where 
only fools state their true intentions, very well, but it is detrimental to any free society. 

One could claim that serving the occasional lie or half-truth is the very nature of politics, since 
human beings frequently prefer to hear pleasant lies over unpleasant truths. Perhaps, but it becomes 
a serious problem when such lies have become endemic, when every political statement and media 
report is steeped in them and when the very structure of society will collapse if these lies are not 
upheld. By then, reality has been reduced to a mirage, faithfully reproduced and projected by the 
servants of the state on a daily basis. 

Swedish journalist Kurt Lundgren wants to know the cost of mass immigration, thought by many 
observers to be considerable, potentially enough to unravel their famous welfare state. He asks the 
authorities about this, and gets the reply that no such calculations exist, although the elaborate 
Swedish bureaucracy has statistics readily available for just about anything else. Lundgren 
concludes that this is because the authorities don't want people to know the truth. 

He recalls reading a book about the GDR, the former Communist dictatorship of East Germany, and 
recognizes many similarities between the lies served there and the lies served in Sweden. The 
endemic lies in Communist countries resulted in that very few citizens believed anything they were 
told by the authorities, which eventually resulted in the collapse of the state. Lundgren fears 
something similar is about to happen in Multicultural Sweden . 

On of his blog readers comments that Sweden is still decisively different from East Germany in 
several respects, above all that the GDR had much more police in the streets. What the two states 
have in common is that the authorities are enemies of their citizens. The fact that they hide the true 
cost of immigration is a result of this, not the cause. The reader also wonders how citizens should 
behave in a country where the state has become the enemy of the very people it is supposed to 

That is an excellent question, and one that is not limited to Britain or Sweden. It is applicable 
throughout Western Europe. If you are a native European, the major problem isn't that the state is 
powerless; it is that the state is now actively hostile to your interests. This didn't happen overnight, 
it happened gradually over many years, with Multiculturalism, mass immigration and the EU. 

Why is complicated to answer. Maybe it's because the post-national elites want to break down 
existing nation states through mass immigration in favor of a pan-European superstate with 
themselves on top, ruling disjointed nations as an authoritarian oligarchy . Maybe it's because our 
media, academia and state apparatus are heavily dominated by left-wingers and Multiculturalists 
who hate Western civilization. Maybe it's because we as a culture suffer from a crisis of confidence 
following our declining influence in the world. Or maybe it's because the state, initially created to 
serve a specific people such as the Dutch, the Swedes, the British etc. has now decided that these 
nations no longer exist. Consequently, the state now exists purely to maintain itself and to serve 
abstract, Utopian principles. 

At the end of the day, the cause matters less than the result: The state is now an enemy. Giving more 


money to the state isn't going to solve any problems since it's is no longer willing or able to serve 
you. It is merely interested in extracting more money from you for doing less and less, and for 
sustaining its bureaucratic machinery through projecting the illusion that it is still there to protect 
the interests of its citizens. How are we going to deal with this culture of lies and a hostile state? I 
don't know. But Western Europeans will have to find the answer to that question soon. 


The death of Sweden 

Tue, 2007-07-31 07:59 

I still get questions as to why I, being Norwegian, write more about Sweden than I do about my 
own country. First of all: I do write about Norway sometimes. And second of all: If you look at 
capital cities alone, Oslo could quite possibly be the worst city in Scandinavia. However, in 
virtually all other respects, Sweden is worse. And yes, it is every bit as bad as I say it is . 

The primary reason why I write so much about Sweden is because it is the most totalitarian country 
in the Western world, and should thus serve as a warning to others. The second reason is that 
Sweden, like my own country, now needs some "tough love." Too many Swedes still cling on to the 
myth of the "Swedish model" while their country is disintegrating underneath their feet. If Sweden 
the nation is to be saved - if it still can be saved, I'm not so sure - then Sweden the ideological 
beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity. 

According to news site The Local , a judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized 
by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and 
an axe was left outside his home. "When a judge in a Swedish court has his home vandalised in this 
way, it is of course very serious," said Ingvar Paulsson, head of the Gothenburg District 
Administrative Court . The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) writes on its homepage that the 
attack was motivated by the situation of Iraqi asylum seekers. The Swedish Board of Migration has 
ruled that they should be deported if they cannot show that a threat exists against them personally. 

It should be noted here that Sweden alone in 2006 accepted almost as many asylum applications 
from Iraqis as all other European countries did combined. Native Swedes, who live in a country that 
was one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world only 30 years ago, will be a 
minority in their own country within a few decades, if current trends continue. Sweden is self- 
destructing at a pace that is probably unprecedented in history, but for the extreme Left, even this 
isn't fast enough. 

AFA openly brag about numerous attacks against persons who get their full name and address 
published on their website. According to them, this is done in order to fight against capitalist 
exploitation and for a global, classless society. Their logic goes something like this: If you protest 
against Muslim immigration, you suffer from Islamophobia, which is almost the same as 
xenophobia, which is almost the same as racism. And racists are almost Fascists and Nazis, as we 
all know, and they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions in public. Hence, if you protest 
against being assaulted or raped by Muslims, you are evil and need to be silenced. If a native Swede 
is really lucky, he or she will thus first get mugged or battered by Muslims, and then beaten up a 
second time by his own extreme Leftists for objecting to being beaten the first time. The state does 
next to nothing to prevent either, of course. Native Swedes who object to a mass immigration that 
will render them a minority in their own country within a couple of generations have already been 
classified as "racists," and racists are for all practical purposes outside of the protection of the law. 

According to some observers, Islamophobic hatred is on the rise in Europe. Let's have a look at 
what constitutes "racist hatred." The following is used as an official example of what is considered 
an Islamophobic hate crime in Sweden: A Muslim family in a Swedish neighborhood asks whether 
it is possible for them to get something else to eat other than sausages made out of pork. Linda then 
answers: "No, we live in Sweden." The family asks what she means by that. Linda repeats that "We 
live in Sweden, and you have to respect that." The man of the family says that "We respect you, 
why can't you respect us?" Linda then replies that "No, unfortunately not." She laughs and walks 

Contrast this with an example from 2006, when Chancellor of Justice Goran Lambertz discontinued 


his preliminary investigation regarding anti-Semitism at the great mosque in Stockholm. He wrote 
that "the lecture at hand contains statements that are strongly degrading to Jews, among other 
things, they are throughout called brothers of apes and pigs." Furthermore a curse is expressed over 
the Jews and "Jihad is called for, to kill the Jews, whereby suicide bombers - celebrated as martyrs 
- are the most effective weapon." Lambertz thought that the "recently mentioned statements in spite 
of their contents are not to be considered incitement against an ethnic group according to Swedish 
law." His conclusions were that the preliminary investigation should be discontinued because this 
incitement against Jews could be said to originate from the Middle East conflict. 

This double standard is not just limited to Jews. Dahn Pettersson, a local politician, has been fined 
18,000 kronor for writing that 95 percent of all heroin brought in comes via Albanians from 
Kosovo. "It is never ethnic groups that commit crimes. It is individuals or groups of individuals," 
prosecutor Mats Svensson told the court, which found Pettersson guilty of "Agitation Against a 
Minority Group." Svante Nycander , former editor of daily Dagens Nyheter, stated that "the ruling in 
Malmo District Court is damaging to freedom of expression. Many will take it as proof that the 
authorities are afraid of uncomfortable truths, and that lacking reasoned counter-arguments they 
punish those who speak plainly." In Sweden, saying that Muslim Albanians are behind much of the 
drug traffic in Europe (a fact) is a crime. Making derogatory statements about the native population, 
however, is just fine . 

Bexhet Kelmeni is of Kosovar Albanian origin and lives in Malmo, the country's third largest city, 
which is set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority in a few years. He thinks 
that it is important that it has now been established that Dahn Pettersson's assertions were criminal. 
"I am ashamed that there are such politicians," says Kelmeni, who claims that he has been in 
contact with hundreds of Albanians and all of them have taken offense. "He needs to learn more 
about the Albanian culture ," Kelmeni says. What he doesn't say is that many of the remaining 
Swedes in Malmo - the natives have been evacuating, or rather fleeing, the city for years due to 
rampant violence and harassment - get daily lessons in Albanian culture. 

Feriz and Pajtim , members of Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in Malmo, explain how they mug people 
downtown. They target a lone victim. "We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer 
fights back," Feriz says. They are always many more people than their victims. Isn't this cowardly? 
"I have heard that from many, but I disagree. The whole point is that they're not supposed to have a 
chance." They don't express any sympathy for their victims. "If they get injured, they just have 
themselves to blame for being weak," says Pajtim and shrugs. "Many of us took part in gangs which 
fought against the Serbs in Kosovo. We have violence in our blood." They blame the politicians for 
why they are mugging, stating that they are bored. If the state could provide them with something to 
do, maybe they would stop attacking people. But is the lack of leisure pursuits the only reason why 
they assault people? "No, it's good fun as well," says Feriz. 

Criminal gangs of Albanians thus freely admit assaulting Swedes, but Swedes cannot suggest that 
there are criminal gangs of Albanians. That's just racist. 

The wave of robberies the city of Malmo is experiencing is part of a "war against the Swedes." This 
is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds. "When we are in the city 
and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes." This argument was repeated 
several times. "Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and 
kiss my feet. We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to." Swedish 
authorities have done virtually nothing to stop this. 

Is there then no racism in Malmo? Yes, there are some nasty cases of Islamophobia. A bus driver 
was suspended for discrimination and hatred after he allegedly tried to stop a woman from boarding 
because she was wearing a burka. According to writer Mats Wahl , arson against schools costs more 
than 300 million kroner a year. An unofficial survey among 52 Swedish municipalities indicated 
that at least 114 such cases of arson were registered within the first half of 2006, but accurate 
numbers were hard to come by. At least 139 schools suffered attempted arson during 2002 alone. 


Bjorn Vinberg from the fire department in the Malmo area says it is degrading to put out fires again 
and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one 
just afterwards. No doubt, this must be a protest against the institutionalized and pervasive 
Islamophobia in Swedish society. 

In a country where the tax rate is above 60%, higher than in almost any other country on the planet 
save perhaps North Korea - which incidentally also has almost as much free speech as Sweden - 
the natives are attacked on a daily basis by immigrant gangs, yet the state seems unwilling to do 
anything to stop this. Although Muslims openly brag about targeting Jews and Christians, this 
doesn't constitute a hate crime. But is does constitute racism and a hate crime if Muslims are not 
presented with halal sausages at all times or allowed to wear a burka wherever they want to. 

According to Professor Wilhelm Agrell , Sweden now has a security policy based on the assumption 
that territorial defense is no longer needed. Military resources are only deemed relevant as political 
markers in distant conflicts and their own territory has become nothing more than a training ground. 
Agrell concludes that "after years of existential angst and budgetary black holes, Sweden's military 
has finally taken down its flag, emptied its stores and fled the field." The few soldiers they do have 
are in places such as Afghanistan, not at home. Jan Karlsen from the Swedish Police Union warned 
in 2007 that the underfunded police force would not be able to keep up with organized crime and 
ethnic tensions for much longer. Meanwhile, police officers are protesting against a new uniform 
designed to make them appear less aggressive by replacing boots with shoes, making guns less 
visible and changing the shirts to a softer , gentler color. 

In an article from June 2007 with the title "Summertime — rape time," Aftonbladet, the largest daily 
in Scandinavia, linked the spike in rapes during the summer to the warm weather. The official 
number of rape charges in Sweden has more than quadrupled during one generation, even more for 
girls under the age of 15. If this is due to the warm weather, I suppose the Scandinavian rape wave 
is caused by global warming? The fact that many of the suspects have a Muslim background , which 
is also proven by statistics from neighboring Norway, is purely coincidental, no doubt. The number 
of rapes in the Norwegian capital Oslo is now six times as high per capita as in New York. 

According to journalist Karen Jespersen, Helle Klein, the political editor-in-chief of Aftonbladet 
from 2001 to 2007 and a former leading member of the Social Democratic Youth League, has stated 
that "If the debate is [about] that there are problems caused by refugees and immigrants, we don't 
want it." Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be 
combined with Swedish society, yet not one party represented in parliament has been genuinely 
critical of the immigration policies, and there is virtually no real debate about Multiculturalism and 

During a demonstration in Stockholm organized by Islamic and anti-racist organizations in 2006, 
Helle Klein stood in front of a banner which read "A Sweden for all — Stop the Nazi violence" 
holding a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. "Sweden for all" sounds almost 
exactly like "Sweden for Allah" in Swedish. When leading members of the political and media 
elites associate Islamophobia with Nazism while remaining silent on the violence committed by 
Muslim gangs in their own country, they are indirectly providing verbal ammunition to extreme 
Leftists groups such as AntiFascistisk Aktion , who physically assault critics of mass immigration. 

The Brotherhood, an organization of Christian Social Democrats, has friendly relations with the 
Muslim Brotherhood , just as Klein's Swedish Social Democratic Party had with the Fascist and 
Nazi regimes prior to WW2. Helle Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organization Hamas, the 
Palestinian branch of the MB, in her editorials, while warning against the threat to world peace 
posed by Israeli aggression and the Christian Zionist Right in the USA. Hamas is a Fascist 
organization openly calling for mass murder of Jews. The irony of warning against "Nazi violence" 
while showing sympathy for an organization that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently 
doesn't strike Ms. Klein, who is now studying to become a priest in the Church of Sweden. Her 
great-grandfather was a rabbi. 


The Church of Sweden has announced its willingness to allow gay couples to marry in church, but 
would like marriage laws to be renamed "cohabitation laws." How Klein intends to reconcile 
support for gay marriage with support for an Islamic terrorist organization that wants to kill gays 
beats me, but I'm sure she'll think of something. 

The British author Paul Weston believes that Britain's national heart has ceased beating: "Our 
national soul is hovering indecisively above the operating table. The crash team have been called, 
but the politically inclined hospital switchboard have told them there is no problem, that everything 
is under control. The life support boys have heard otherwise, they are hurrying to get there, but 
other hospital staff members have switched the signage to the operating theatre and killed the lights. 
It is a big hospital, they only have minutes to get there, they are lost, confused, misinformed, and 
the clock is relentlessly ticking, and ticking, and ticking. . ." 

I'm inclined to say the same thing about Sweden. The Swedish nation is currently on its deathbed. 
We can only hope there is life after death after all. 


How the west lost the cold war 

Thursday, August 23, 2007 

The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats, a small party critical of mass 
immigration, was recently attacked at her home outside Stockholm. The young woman was found 
bound with duct tape in the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of the 
youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the couple's apartment and held the 19- 
year-old at knife point. Kinnunen tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. 
He blames the media for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and thus for legitimizing 
aggression against them, and claims that the Swedish democracy is a sham. 

Antifascistisk Aktion , a group that supposedly fights against "racists," openly brag about numerous 
physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. Only a 
week after this group harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, members demonstrated 
alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during 
Pride Week, Stockholm's annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride 
Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked representatives of AFA . Adjacent to them 
marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization. 

At their website , AFA claim to have beaten several homophobes during 
the event, at least one of whom ended up in a hospital. They are 
Socialists, and as Socialists they are convinced that progress can only be 
made through struggle, and it is implicit that they mean violent struggle: 
"If we want to fight against capitalism, the working class needs to be 
united, and in order to be so intolerance cannot be tolerated. However, if 
we want to fight against intolerance we have to defeat capitalism as an 
extension of that struggle. Hence anti-fascism, feminism and the struggle 
against homophobia go hand in hand with the class struggle!" 

According to Politikerbloggen , AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to 
paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely. 
Meanwhile, senior members of law enforcement are too busy waving plastic penises to care. It's all 
for tolerance, and then there is this small group at the back, behind the police, the media and the 
cultural and political establishment, ready to assault, beat up and hospitalize anybody deemed to be 
insufficiently tolerant. 

Several of the Centre Party's offices were vandalized before the elections in 2006 in protest against 
a proposal for new labor agreements. This was done by a coalition of left-wing extremists calling 
themselves the Invisible Party . AFA participated, as they proudly proclaim on their website. The 
centre-right coalition government which gained power that year consists of four parties including 
the Centre Party. A year later, representatives from this government walked alongside the same 
group which had attacked their offices a few months earlier. 

Broderskapsrorelsen ("The Brotherhood"), an organization of Christian members of the Swedish 
Social Democratic Party, has decided to establish a network for people of other faiths, which largely 
seems to mean Muslims. Its leader Peter Weiderud says that "I'm incredibly happy that a 
unanimous congress now leaves the door open for Muslims and others to work together with us in 
the Brotherhood; this is going to enrich us all and help the [Social Democratic] Party to better 
influence the Swedish society." For Abdulkader Habib, active within the Muslim Brotherhood, the 
decision is a historic step which shows that the dividing lines in society do not go between religions, 


but within religions: "Faith and politics are intertwined for many Muslims, which is why the 
decision to create this network is a key to the crucial work for integration that we need to do." "We 
shouldn't disregard the importance of people's [religious] faith," says deputy leader Cecilia 
Dalman-Eek. "At the same time, this is both instructive and inspiring for us Christians within the 
Brotherhood. This is about an exciting growth of new mass movements and is a part of the new 

The Social Democrat Ola Johansson, a member of the Brotherhood, has referred to the book Social 
Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood member who has become the 
spiritual guide for Islamic Jihad terrorists worldwide, as a proof that Muslims support the welfare 
state and can thus make common cause with the Socialists. 

According to writer Nima Sanandaji , the Social Democrats have started fishing for votes with the 
help of radical Muslims clergies such as the influential leader Mahmoud Aldebe. In 1999, Aldebe 
proposed that sharia, Islamic law, be introduced in Sweden. In 2003 he involved himself in a heated 
debate regarding an incident of honor killing where a Kurdish girl was murdered by her two uncles. 
Aldebe forcefully defended the perpetrators and viewed the debate regarding honor-related murders 
as an attack against the Islamic religion. 

In 2006, the Muslim Association of Sweden demanded in a letter, signed by its leader Mahmoud 
Aldebe, separate family laws regulating marriage and divorce, public schools with imams teaching 
homogeneous classes of Muslims children their religion and the language of their original 
homeland, and a "mosque in every municipality to be built through interest-free loans made 
available by the local municipalities." This to demonstrate "Islam's right to exist in Sweden" and to 
"heighten the status of and respect towards Muslims." The demands were rejected by the Social 
Democrats then, but it now appears as if they have recognized that they need to cooperate with the 
fast-growing Muslim community if they want to regain power, so we shouldn't be surprised to see 
calls for the use of sharia law in family matters by an otherwise officially feminist party. 

The Social Democrats narrowly lost the elections in 2006, and appear to have decided that the way 
to regain and maintain power is to import voters, a strategy adopted by many of their sister parties 
in Western Europe. The Muslim Association of Sweden is generally viewed as ideologically 
inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The current leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin , thinks that "the Sweden Democrats are a 
right-wing party. It is a misogynistic and xenophobic party." The "party is a threat to a Sweden that 
I believe many of us love — an open, unprejudiced and tolerant Sweden." 

Whatever else one thinks about that party, I'm not so sure the Muslim Brotherhood are less 
"misogynistic." According to journalist Kurt Lundgren , Sahlin, expected to become the next Prime 
Minister, was a participant in the Pride Festival where she was graduated, after several questions, to 
the F***ing Medal Award. Has she given some thought to what effect this will have in a country 
with exploding rape statistics ? According to the blogger Dick Erixon , the number of reported rapes 
in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York. NY has roughly the same number of 
inhabitants, but it is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. 
Swedish girls are called "infidel whores" on a regular basis and are increasingly scared to go 
outside, yet the nation's arguably most powerful woman takes the F***ing Medal Award. How will 
that be perceived by Muslim immigrants? 


Moreover, how will her views on sexual liberation be reconciled with her party's cooperation with 
the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of its senior international leaders have indicated that gays 
should be killed? The Swedish Church has recently announced that it will allow gay couples to 
marry in church. Will Sahlin and the Social Democrats also make sure that gay couples should be 
allowed to marry in mosques controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will AFA attack them for 
homophobia if they refuse? 

Marcos Cantera Carlo magno in 1995 published a PhD thesis at Lund University describing a series 
of letters sent by Per Albin Hansson , leader of the Social Democrats and Prime Minister between 
1932 and 1946, who worked for the establishment of "Folkhemmet," the People's Home, as the 
Swedish welfare state model became known as. Hansson was a dear pen pal with Italy's Fascist 
leader Mussolini and praised the corporate, Fascist system where the entire economy and each 
individual were intimately tied to and subordinate to the state. Hansson was positively disposed to 
Fascism and saw his welfare state as a related concept. After mentioning his work in a local 
newspaper, Carlomagno was called by his supervisor who stated in anger that his scholarship would 
be cut off. Carlomagno 's work was totally ignored by the entire media and political establishment in 
Sweden when it appeared in the 1990s. 

Why did this information meet with such repression? Because the power of the political and cultural 
establishment is not based on reasoned discussion but on shaming opponents and branding them as 
evil with words loaded with emotions and taboo. Terms such as "racist", "Fascist", and "Nazi" 
automatically shut down any rational discussion of a subject. The irony is that a similar strategy was 
employed with great success by the Nazis. 

Adolf Hitler described how to use "spiritual terror" to intimidate and silence opponents, a technique 
he learned from watching the Socialists and the Social Democrats. He understood "the infamous 
spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither 
morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies 
and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked 
persons break down and, just to have peace again, they sacrifice the hated individual. . . Conversely, 
they praise every weakling on the opposing side, sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, 
depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence." 

In 2006, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported that following recommendations from the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, priests in the Swedish Church applied German race laws from 1937 
onwards. According to Lund University's Professor Anders Jarlert, who led the research, any Swede 
who wanted to marry an Aryan German was forced to sign an affirmation stating that none of the 
German's grandparents were Jewish. History Professor Stig Ekman told DN that Sweden's culture 
of silence and secrecy is one reason why this is appearing only now, generations later. In 1937, the 
Swedish government was controlled by the Social Democrats, yet despite this evidence that they 
applied Nazi race laws, party members still get away with denouncing critics of their immigration 
policies as neo-Nazis, racists or Fascists. 

In the book The New Totalitarians , the British historian Roland Huntford in the early 1970s pointed 
out that Socialist professor Gunnar Myrdal and his wife Alva, both highly influential ideologists in 
developing the Swedish welfare state, had intimate connections with the German academic world 
during the Nazi age. Gunnar Myrdal served as both a member of parliament and later as a 
government minister for the Social Democrats during this period. According to Huntford: "The 
professor was then a Nazi sympathizer, publicly describing Nazism as the movement of youth and 
the movement of the future. In Myrdal's defence, it must be pointed out that, whatever his other 
propensities, Hitler did have advanced ideas on social welfare, and that the social ideology of the 
German Nazis and the Swedish Social Democrats had much in common. Until the mid 1930s, 


Nazism had considerable attractions for those who favoured a benevolent and authoritarian state." 

Gunnar and Alva Myrdal promoted the idea of positive eugenics and forced sterilization programs 
against those with "weak genes." This started in Sweden even before Nazi Germany, and it 
continued longer. 

The Nazis called themselves national Socialists, and they took the Socialist component of their 
ideology quite seriously . They never nationalized all assets of production as the Communists did. 
They left nominal ownership in private hands, but production was in reality controlled by the state . 
The Nazis were thus to the left, economically, compared to many of the labor parties in Western 
Europe today. As Adolf Hitler stated in 1927: "We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the 
present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice 
in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of 
responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this 

The Muslim Brotherhood were also fans of the European Fascist and Nazi movements in the 1930s, 
as they are of welfare state Socialism now. In Origins of Fascism, historian Walter Laqueur notes 
similarities between Islam and Nazism: "A German Catholic emigre writer Edgar Alexander (Edgar 
Alexander Emmerich) published an interesting work in 1937 in Switzerland entitled The Hitler 
Mythos (which was translated into English and reprinted after World War Two) in which he 
compared National Socialism with 'Mohammedanism' (...) He referred frequently to Hitler's 
'Mohammedanism' but made it clear that this referred only to external organizational forms 
(whatever this meant), to mass psychological effects and militant fanaticism. Alexander believed 
that Mohammed's religion was based on sincere religious fanaticism (combined with political 
impulses) whereas Hitler's (political) religion and its fanaticism had different sources." 

In Laqueur 's view, Fascism was less monolithic than Communism, as there were significant 
differences in theory and practice from country to country. The French Marxist Orientalist Maxime 
Rodinson wrote a polemic against the influential philosopher and fellow left-winger Michel 
Foucault who welcomed the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to Rodinson, Khomeini and 
Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood constituted a form of "archaic fascism." Ibn Warraq 
has used an outline of the Fascist ideology made by Italian novelist Umberto Eco and found that 
most of its defining hallmarks are shared by Islam. 

German sociologist Theodor Adorno was a member of the Frankfurt School and was influenced by 
Georg Lukacs, one of Gramsci's fellow cultural Marxists. The Authoritarian Personality, a book 
carrying Adorno 's name but in reality produced by the combined efforts of a number of people from 
the Frankfurt School, was extremely influential in the United States in the generation following 
WW2 and contributed to the Allied denazification program in Germany. Working at the University 
of Berkeley, California, during and after the war, Adorno and others such as the German- Jewish 
thinker Max Horkheimer through a large number of interviews tried to establish that what led to the 
rise of Nazi Germany was the predominance of a particular kind of authoritarian personality, which 
happened to be closely tied to conservative viewpoints. In their view, this was not just the case in 
Nazi Germany; there were large numbers of potential Fascists all over the Western world. 

The authors developed the so-called F-scale (F for "Fascist") to measure the psychological 
indicators of an authoritarian personality. They identified several key dimensions of a protofascist 
personality, which included favoring traditional morality, close family ties and strong support of 
religion. It also included aggression, stereotypes, a preoccupation with oppression, dominance and 
destruction and an obsession with sex. The solution to root out this authoritarian personality was 
above all to be found in the breakdown and transformation of the traditional family structure.. 


It is striking to notice that these writers were inspired by a Marxist worldview and consistently 
refused to see the heavy Socialist influences on the Nazi ideology Adorno and others argued that 
"late capitalism" had developed tools to resist the rise of a Socialist society, above all the use of 
popular culture and education. They apparently concluded that what led to the rise of the Nazis 
were traditional and "conservative" viewpoints. 

But the Nazis weren't conservatives. They should more properly be understood as a revolutionary 
Socialist movement, albeit one with powerful racialist and anti-Semitic overtones. Judging from the 
death toll produced by Socialist regimes both prior to and after them, it is tempting to conclude that 
the destruction brought by the Nazis owed at least as much to the Socialist as to the nationalist 
element of their ideology. The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, published in 1951, a 
year after The Authoritarian Personality, was somewhat closer to understanding the commonalities 
between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. 

However, since the Nazis have by now been dubbed a "far-right" movement, anybody considered to 
be a "right-winger" or conservative is thus supposedly closer to them than Socialists are, which 
automatically makes them suspect. Much of the power of the political Left throughout the West is 
based on such guilt-by-association, which is why it would be a disaster for their power base if it 
were to be demonstrated that the Swedish Social Democrats, the darlings of the political Left 
internationally, were close to the Fascists and the Nazis. They now display great affection for Islam, 
another thing they have in common with the Nazis. 

Many of the stories in the famous The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights), 
though frequently based on much older Persian and Indian tales, are said to have taken place during 
the rule of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad in the late 8th and early 9th century. Few 
seem to remember that the first prototype of the yellow badge for Jews employed by the Nazis were 
developed by him, based on the regulations for dhimmis in Islamic teachings. He ordered Jews to 
wear yellow belts, Christians blue belts. This practice was later imported to Europe via medieval 
Spain and Portugal under Islamic rule. 

Muhammad Amin al-Husayni , the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading 
force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close 
collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from 
Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them. Dieter Wisliceny was 
the deputy of Adolf Eichmann, the organizer of the Holocaust and reportedly the inventor of the 
phrase the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question." During the Nuremberg trials, Wisliceny stated 
that the Mufti "was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the 
extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the 
gas chambers of Auschwitz." 

Serge Trifkovic in his book The Sword of the Prophet documents how al-Husayni recruited Bosnian 
and Albanian Muslims for Waffen SS units in the Balkans . Yugoslavia wanted to extradite al- 
Husayni for war crimes after WW2, but he fled to Egypt and continued his war against Jews. 
Orthodox Christian Serbs had to wear blue armbands, Jews yellow armbands. This clearly 
demonstrates that for Muslims this was a Jihad against disobedient dhimmis, and thus a 
continuation of the Turkish and Kurdish genocide against Armenians a few years earlier which was 
one of the inspirations for the Holocaust. More than a quarter of a million Serbs, Jews and Romani 
people (Gypsies) were killed by these Muslims troops. The leader of the Nazi SS troops Heinrich 
Himmler was impressed and stated to Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels that Islam was "a very 
practical and attractive religion for soldiers." 

He was far from the only person seeing a close correlation between Nazism and Islam. Karl Jung , in 


The Symbolic Life from 1939, stated that: "We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new 
Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; 
warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future." In The 
Second World War, Vol. I (The Gathering Storm), Winston Churchill wrote about Adolf Hitler's 
autobiography Mein Kampf. "Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, 
but pregnant with its message." 

Medieval anti- Jewish pogroms in Europe could be brutal, but still normally of limited scope. To 
commit evil on a truly monumental scale, you need the support of ideology backed by bureaucrats, 
jurists and the machinery of a totalitarian state. Since Socialism generally leads in a totalitarian 
direction, which has also been facilitated by technological and industrial advances, a Socialist 
society will make large-scale massacres more likely. 

The Hungarian author Imre Kertesz, Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, 
writes in the magazine that "the genuine novelties of the twentieth century were 
the totalitarian state and Auschwitz. The anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century, for instance, was 
as yet barely able, nor even would have wished, to imagine a Final Solution. Auschwitz, therefore, 
cannot be accounted for by the common-or-garden, archaic, not to say classical concepts of anti- 
Semitism. (...) Eichmann testified during his trial in Jerusalem that he was never an anti-Semite, and 
although those who were in the courtroom burst into laughter, it is not inconceivable that he was 
being truthful. In order to murder millions of Jews the totalitarian state had need, in the final 
analysis, not so much of anti-Semites as good organisers. We need to see clearly that no 
totalitarianism of party or state can exist without discrimination, and the totalitarian form of 
discrimination is necessarily mass murder." 

Kertesz also warns, timely in these Multicultural days, that "a civilisation that does not clearly 
proclaim its values, or which leaves these proclaimed values high and dry, is stepping on the path to 
perdition and terminal debility. Then others will pronounce their values, and in the mouths of these 
others they will no longer be values but just so many pretexts for untrammelled power, 
untrammelled destruction." 

Following the Cold War, the West was stuck with a large fifth column in our media and academia of 
people who were disappointed after the sudden collapse of the alternative to capitalism. They are 
slaves emancipated against their will, desperately in search of a new master. Their hatred for the 
Established Order never subsided when Marxism suffered a blow to its credibility. On the contrary, 
on some levels it increased. Although their attacks on the Christian, capitalist West are less 
ideologically coherent than in the past, this does not make them any less passionate. 

They have decided to pursue the course of a gradual transformation of society through the education 
system and through destroying the family structure. The radicals have renewed hope of a violent 
upheaval. With the mass importation of Muslims, who have displayed such a wonderful talent for 
violence, and with rising ethnic tensions within the West, maybe they can finally get the armed 
revolution they were longing for. 

The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased 
the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with repressive and violent Islamic 
organizations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and 
ideologies in human history, which between themselves have killed more than 150 million people in 
a few generations. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the 


Now they forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, another organization with close 
ideological ties to the Fascist and Nazi movements. At a time when native Swedes are raped, 
stabbed, killed and chased out of their homes by Muslim gangs, the Social Democrats agree to 
continue allowing Muslims to colonize the country in exchange for their votes. In the old days this 
would be called treason. Now it's called tolerance. It's remarkable how similar the two concepts 
have become. Two Fascist- inspired movements cooperate on exploiting and abusing the native 
population of a country, force them fund and applaud their own colonization and denounce them as 
bigots, racists and Fascists if they resist. The strategy is as brilliant as it is evil. 

Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can stab their own people in the back, ally 
themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still 
manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former Soviet 
dissident Vladimir Bukovsky : The West didn't win the Cold War, at least not as decisively as we 
should have done. The belief-system we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain 
some of its former strength . We haven't defeated Socialism until we stage a Nuremberg trial and 
demonstrate clearly that the suffering, repression and massacres caused by Socialist regimes from 
Vietnam via the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist doctrines. 


The EU wants to increase muslim immigration and internet 

Fri, 2007-09-14 19:16 

A few months ago, the EU's Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini worried about what 
to do with illegal immigration. To no-one's surprise, he appears to have settled for surrendering and 
making it legal. The skilled glossocrat Frattini has already banned the use of the phrase Islamic 
terrorism: "You cannot use the term 'Islamic terrorism,'" he insisted. "People who commit suicide 
attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the 
name of this religion." He now thinks we shouldn't use the word "immigration," either, we should 
talk about "mobility." Moreover, the "Asian" and "African" immigrants in this case generally come 
from the predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, with some 
additional ones from Pakistan and similar nations. The EU has thus decided to flood Europe with 
tens of millions of Muslims, at the same time as peaceful Europeans demonstrating against the 
Islamization of Europe were brutally harassed by the police in the EU capital of Brussels. 

In the future, the next time Islamic Jihad terrorists, I mean mobile workers enriching us with their 
presence when they are not abusing Islam, massacre scores of Europeans, the EU will assure us that 
they did everything in their power to stop this, and then they will continue facilitating the 
Islamization of the continent as if nothing has happened. The sensible option would be to point out 
that we had no Muslim terrorism in Western Europe before we had Muslim immigration. The key to 
ending Muslim terrorism should then logically be to end and preferably reverse Muslim 
immigration. The EU's solution to this is to continue and even increase Muslim immigration while 
stopping web searches for the word "bomb." The scary part is that once the infrastructure and 
principle of Internet censorship has become firmly established, it could be widened to include other 
kinds of illegal or unwanted activities, for instance "racist" and "xenophobic" websites criticizing 
Islam or mass immigration. And make no mistake about it: They will do so. They are probably 
planning this as we speak. 

Notice how EU officials announce sweeping and potentially irreversible changes, proclaim that they 
are "inevitable" and that we may just as well adapt and get used to it. Resistance is futile. This is a 
lie and it always has been. The entire European Union has been created by such lies, repeated year 
after year. The gradual destruction of formerly independent nation states was carefully planned and 
executed, and the introduction of mass immigration from non- Western countries has been and still is 
a crucial component of this plan. Notice how Frattini specifically singles out Italy, which has so far 
received less immigration than many other countries in Western Europe, for attention. He also 
mentions Hungary, one of the newer EU members from the former Communist bloc, meaning that 
these countries, too, are now supposed to receive a dose of Multicultural diversity, whether they like 
it or not. The purpose of this immigration, not just between European countries but from Muslim 
and non-EU countries as well, is to dilute and destroy the established nation states and their culture, 
until the natives in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Britain, Spain etc. are too weak and 
demoralized to resist the creation of a pan-European superstate. Opposition to this policy should be 
banned as racism and hate speech. 

Muslim immigration is destabilizing the entire European continent. Since the EU, which should 
more properly be called the awrf-European Union, is facilitating this, the continued existence of the 
EU now constitutes a mortal threat to the very survival of European civilization. Every day the EU 
exists brings Europe one step closer to the grave. 

EU told to accept 20m migrant workers The Financial Times, 12 September 

Europe must relax its immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20m workers 


during the next two decades, the European Union's justice chief will say on Friday. 
Franco Frattini, justice commissioner, is to tell the bloc's immigration ministers in 
Lisbon that the EU should stop erecting barriers and instead build safe pathways for 
Africans and Asians who risk their lives heading to the continent to find a job. "We have 
to look at immigration not as a threat but - when well-managed, and that is our new task 
- as an enrichment and as an inescapable phenomenon of today's world," he will say. He 
will suggest the word immigration should be dropped in favour of "mobility". Germany, 
Italy and Hungary, with their ageing populations, are most in need of immigrants. The 
reforms could lead to a more than doubling of the EU's foreign-born population by 

Web search for bomb recipes should be blocked: EU Reuters, 10 September 

Internet searches for bomb-making instructions should be blocked across the European 
Union. Internet providers should also prevent access to any site giving instructions on 
how to make a bomb, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said in an 
interview. "I do intend to carry out a clear exploring exercise with the private sector ... 
on how it is possible to use technology to prevent people from using or searching 
dangerous words like bomb, kill, genocide or terrorism." The EU executive is to make 
this proposal to member states early in November as part of a raft of anti-terrorism 
proposals. These include the screening of private data of passengers flying into the 27- 
nation bloc and the creation of an early warning system to alert police forces to thefts of 
explosives. Representatives of the Internet industry are meeting the EU on the sixth 
anniversary of al Qaeda's September 1 1 attacks on the United States, at a European 
Security Research and Innovation Forum. European legislation would spell out the 
principles of blocking access to bomb instructions. The details would be worked out by 
each country. Disconnecting a Web site immediately was currently possible only in a 
minority of EU states including Italy, Frattini said. "The level of the threat (in the EU) 
remains very high. That's why I am making appeals and appeals for stronger and closer 


The age of white masochism 

Tuesday, October 09, 2007 

Imagine if you planned a country's economic future using calculations exclusively based on even 
numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they 
represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely 
all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, 
but what we're doing now in the Western world is exactly this naive. In the name of 
Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, 
because we have decided that these things don't matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion 
and race do matter. Doesn't that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up 
being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account? 

Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good 
intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies 
gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a 
fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will 
become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn't conform to 
the official ideology. Isn't this what is happening in the West now? 

I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still 
don't think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently 
uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it 
means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, it needs to be taken into account. 
Whether we like this or not is immaterial. 

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above 
others. An international poll in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia 
and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle. Immigration 
concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries. 

Guarding your identity is thus a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced 
among whites today than among anybody else. Only whites cling onto the idea of universalism, 
everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group. In white majority Western nations it has become 
a state-sponsored ideology to "celebrate diversity," despite the fact that all available evidence 
indicates that more diversity leads to more conflict. 

In May 2007, Osama bin Laden's deputy terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahri stated that ' Al-Qaida is 
not merely for the benefit of Muslims. That's why I want blacks in America, people of color, 
American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa 
and Asia, and all over the world." 

Read that statement closely. This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not 
Christians or Jews. Whites. I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this 
balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your 


According to the columnist Leo McKinstry , the British government has declared war on white 
English people: 

In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. 
The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history 
trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens. 

Keith Best , head of the Immigration Advisory Service, stated that immigrants are "better citizens" 
than native Britons. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group was shocked and 
replied that "Taxpayers shouldn't be funding an outfit that describes them as being second-rate 
citizens." But apparently, now they do. 

DNA studies have proved that a significant majority of those who live in the British Isles today are 
descended directly from the Ice Age hunters, despite the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman 
invasions. This accounts for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the 

The UK Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 claimed that "everyone who lives in Britain today 
is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant." But if everybody is an immigrant, how 
come people of European stock in the Americas and Australia are still viewed as alien elements by 
some, even though many of them have lived there for centuries? As Professor David Conway 
demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants? , after the invasion led by William the Conqueror 
in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the 
population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien 
cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously. 

I'm sure the English are told that this is a result of colonialism, but there are no Britons left in 
Pakistan, so why should there be Pakistanis in Britain? The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why 
should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial 
history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why 
should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why 
should European countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have all suffered from 
centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, 
Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass 
immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past colonialist history, 
population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the 
Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and thereby have no 
legitimate claim to their own countries. 

As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: "Why can't we protest? 
Why aren't we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, 
whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power 
or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?" 

The columnist Kevin Myers in Ireland thinks that no country has ever accepted, never mind 
assimilated, the volumes of immigrants now present in his country: 

Why the presumption that an Asian Muslim who lives in Ireland is in any way Irish? 
My mother lived most of her life in England, but never for a second thought of herself 


as English. The media should be asking the big question, 'Why are we still admitting 
hundreds of thousands of immigrants?' Instead, we are obsessing with the relatively 
trivial question of: Are the Irish people, who after all have admitted vast armies of 
strangers to their national home, racist? This is self-hatred at its most pathetic, and its 
most self-defeating. 

Rune Gerhardsen of the Labor Party in Oslo, the son of Norway's longest-serving Prime Minister in 
history, states that "When I went to school we were taught about the Great Migrations. Today's 
migrations are just as big. This is part of an international trend we neither can nor want to stop. I 
think this development is first and foremost exciting and positive." He likes to say that we have 
lived for 10,000 years without anybody visiting us. Now we've had a massive change within an 
extremely brief historical period of time. 

I will give Gerhardsen credit for frankly admitting that this is by far the greatest demographic 
change in our nation's history since the end of the last Ice Age. The problem is, this change, which 
has already made the country a lot less safe than it was only a generation ago, has been conducted 
without real debate, solely with propaganda and censorship. And I'm not so sure all of these groups 
have come merely to "visit" us. Some of them are here to colonize and subdue us, and readily admit 
this if you care to listen to them. 

According to the writer Kent Andersen , the greatest social experiment the population has ever been 
subject to was never decided democratically. The native majority were never allowed to have a say 
about whether they wanted to change the country forever. In his view, you don't get mass 
immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires it. 

During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, novelist Torgrim Eggen in an essay entitled " The 
psychotic racism " warned against "race wars in the streets" as a result of mass immigration. The 
solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to 
Eggen, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and 
hence "the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are 
seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and 
he liked the idea." Mr Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city's drinking water. 

This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Mr. Fugelli has continued to publicly 
chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about 
how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn't be accepted because this could 
lead to Fascism: "One should be on one's guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke 
xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as 
'ordinary people feel that,' one shouldn't argue at all, one should hit [them]." 

Repeated violence committed by non-white immigrants against whites is dismissed because they 
come from "weak groups." But whites are a weak group. We are a rapidly shrinking global 
minority, and Nordic-looking Scandinavians are a minority of a minority. Ethnologist Maria 
Backman in her study "Whiteness and gender" followed a group of Swedish girls in the immigrant- 
dominated suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm. Several of the native girls stated that they had 
dyed their hair to avoid harassment and being called "whore." We thus already now have a situation 
where being blond in certain areas of Sweden, not just in Pakistan or Egypt, makes you a target of 
harassment and aggression. 

In my country, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud from 2006 made Multiculturalism and 
total non-discrimination into an official state ideology. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native 
has somehow discriminated against him, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own 
innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western 
Europe, encouraged by the European Union. 


Native Europeans are being told that we don't have a history and a culture, and that we thus "gain" 
a culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European 
history, to the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and cultures and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian 
heritage all Westerners share in. The funny part is, the next second we are told that we do have a 
culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus nothing to preserve, anyway. 

My nation doesn't even have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth 
century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am to be held personally 
responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have 
roughly similar skin color throughout history. American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that "The 
white race is the cancer of human history." I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, 
and five minutes later I'm told that race doesn't matter. 

I do not hold Abdullah who sells kebab down on the corner personally responsible for sacking 
Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, 
ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have 
never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is 
alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held 
responsible for actions made by his ancestors centuries ago. 

On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, 
committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit 
for their achievements. It was peoples of European stock who created the modern world , not 
anybody else. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism, I want personal credit for 
being a part of the one civilization that has taken the greatest strides for mankind of any civilization 
that has ever existed on this planet. I'm done with apologizing for my existence for the nameless 
crime of being born white. 

As African- American writer Elizabeth Wright says: 

After decades of inundation about the evils of 'white racism' coming from all directions, 
and most especially from the media and education establishments, the average white is 
programmed to avoid anything that smacks of conscious endorsement of his own race. 
In the current social climate, to display favorable regard towards that which is white, not 
only is forbidden, but is viewed as an automatic disparagement of non- whites. A 'White 
Pride' T-shirt is deemed a threatening symbol, whereas a 'Black Supremacy' slogan on a 
button or garment is viewed as an understandable, albeit angry response to undeserved 
past abuses. Any public effort to promote a white theme is doomed to failure, even if the 
proper bows to racial diversity are adhered to. Whites learn early to censor themselves. 

I've been told by Americans that they have moved beyond race, but judging from examples such as 
this, it looks more as if they have established a culture of institutionalized white masochism. It's not 
that Americans have moved beyond race, it's just that the whites have unilaterally surrendered. The 
United States was almost 90% white as late as 1965, and will be minority white within a couple of 
generations. I don't know of any example where the formerly dominant group has become a 
minority and this has not resulted in a complete change of the nature of that country, or to its 
dissolution, but in the USA, this entire subject is taboo because it is "racist." That's not rational. 

I have listened to claims regarding the supposed benefits of mass immigration, why it is inevitable 
and why those who resist are bad people. The propaganda is remarkably similar from the 
Netherlands via Britain to Sweden and Italy, and that's not a coincidence. This is all happening as a 
coordinated and well-planned assault on established national cultures, organized by the European 
Union and supported by the national political and media elites. 


It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there, but the 
natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history 
that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization 
and are even expected to fund this colonization. It is one of the greatest crimes of our age that the 
indigenous people of an entire continent, at least the Western half of it, are systematically deprived 
of their heritage, their history, their land and ultimately perhaps their entire physical existence, all 
with the active aid of the very individuals who are supposed to protect their interests. The only 
reason why this is considered positive, or even remotely acceptable, is because the natives in this 
case are white. There is no other reason for this. 

In Glasgow, Scotland, Kriss Donald , a 15-year-old totally innocent white schoolboy was abducted, 
stabbed repeatedly and then doused in petrol and burned to death by a group of Pakistani 
immigrants. Labour politician Mohammad Sarwar, who helped in bringing some of the men to 
justice, later became the first elected representative in Britain to step down due to threats against his 

The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the 
newcomers. I don't see any reason to expect this to be different just because the natives happen to 
be white. On the contrary. We will be attacked even more viciously because we are a formerly 
dominant group. When we are told that mass immigration is "inevitable," we are actually being told 
that verbal and physical abuse of out children is inevitable and that we should "get used to it." I see 
no reason to accept that. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children, it is my duty to 
resist it. 

Jews were once told to "get back to Palestine." When they did, they were told to "get out of 
Palestine." The people who said this didn't object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that 
they existed at all. I sometimes wonder whether whites of European descent, a global minority, are 
the Jews of the 21st century. I also notice that while people of European descent are told to "get 
back to Europe" in North America or Australia, whites in Europe are demonized if they resist being 
turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn't where whites live, 
it's that we exist at all. 

Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as "right- 
wing extremists." But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is 
more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was. I agree with him. I'm sick of 
hearing how Islamic organizations that want to destroy my civilization are called "moderates," 
whereas Westerners are extremists if we resist, yet that is exactly what our media and our authorities 
do. We are not extremists; we are subject to policies that are extreme. Is gradually reducing a people 
to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded 
as extreme? 

I hear some writers fear an extremist backlash in Europe, but if people are so concerned about white 
extremism then they should cease creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native 
Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are pushed into a corner and have an entirely 
justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, and desperation sometimes leads 
to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of political movements in Europe that really are extremist — 
and I sometimes fear this outcome, too — this will not come about because white Europeans are 
born evil, it will come about because white Europeans will be pushed into extremism, feel that their 
continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their own authorities. The 
solution to this is simply to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from 
alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. 


We have reached our limits and we need a break from mass immigration before our entire political 
and economic system breaks down. The idea that every white person who desires self-determination 
and self-preservation is a racist, a white supremacist and a Nazi is nonsense and should flatly be 
rejected. The vast majority of racist violence in Western nations is by non-whites attacking whites. 
Consequently, if we limit immigration this is anti-racism, since we are protecting our children 
against racist violence. It is not about white supremacy, either, it is about equality. Whites are 
currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their countries and 
heritage. If we assert our right to do so we are thus fighting for equality, not supremacy. 

The "Nazi" accusations so carelessly thrown out these days are completely baseless in this context. 
The Nazis believed that whites, and blondes in particular, had the right to colonize or eradicate 
others. But the policy we follow today could be dubbed reversed Nazism since it is based on the 
assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized or culturally 
eradicated with impunity. I don't see why I should either be a "Nazi" or embrace and celebrate my 
extinction. It's a false choice. 

I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. The white man conquered 
the world and then suffered a nervous breakdown, a kind of collective neurosis shared by an entire 
civilization. However, I sense that this era is slowly coming to an end. 

I would use two arguments as to why the current mass immigration the West should be halted: 

1 . Whites, too, have a right to exist. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the 
heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own and 
where they can live in dignity 

2. The ongoing immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their 
population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the 
same effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence. 

I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a 
major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped 
of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We 
have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or 
serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. 
For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love 
this even more if I know I can also return to my own. 


The fatherless civilization 

Mon, 2007-10-15 14:02 

American columnist Diana West recently released her book The Death of the Grown-up , where she 
traces the decline of Western civilization to the permanent youth rebellions of the past two 
generations. The decade from the first half of the 1960s to the first half of the 1970s was clearly a 
major watershed in Western history, with the start of non- Western mass immigration in the USA, 
the birth of Eurabia in Western Europe and the rise of Multiculturalism and radical Feminism. 

The paradox is that the people who viciously attacked their own civilization had enjoyed 
uninterrupted economic growth for decades, yet embraced Marxist-inspired ideologies and decided 
to undermine the very society which had allowed them to live privileged lives. Maybe this isn't as 
strange as it seems. Karl Marx himself was aided by the wealth of Friedrich Engels, the son of a 
successful industrialist. 

This was also the age of decolonization in Western Europe and desegregation in the USA, which 
created an atmosphere where Western civilization was seen as evil. Whatever the cause, we have 
since been stuck in a pattern of eternal opposition to our own civilization. Some of these problems 
may well have older roots, but they became institutionalized to an unprecedented degree during the 

According to Diana West , the organizing thesis of her book "is that the unprecedented transfer of 
cultural authority from adults to adolescents over the past half century or so has dire implications 
for the survival of the Western world." Having redirected our natural development away from 
adulthood and maturity in order to strike the pop-influenced pose of eternally cool youth - ever- 
open, non-judgmental, self-absorbed, searching for (or just plain lacking) identity - we have 
fostered a society marked by these same traits. In short: Westerners live in a state of perpetual 
adolescence, but also with a corresponding perpetual identity crisis. West thinks maturity went out 
of style in the rebellious 1960s, "the biggest temper tantrum in the history of the world," which 
flouted authority figures of any kind. 

She also believes that although the most radical break with the past took place during the 60s and 
70s, the roots of Western youth culture are to be found in the 1950s with the birth of rock and roll 
music, Elvis Presley and actors such as James Dean. Pop group The Beatles embodied this in the 
early 60s, but changed radically in favor of drugs and the rejection of established wisdom as they 
approached 1970, a shift which was reflected in the entire culture. 

Personally, one of my favorite movies from the 1980s was Back to the Future. In one of the scenes, 
actor Michael J. Fox travels in time from 1985 to 1955. Before he leaves 1985, he hears the slogan 
"Re-elect Mayor.... Progress is his middle name." The same slogan is repeated in 1955, only with a 
different name. Politics is politics in any age. Writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale have stated 
that they chose the year 1955 as the setting of the movie because this was the age of the birth of 
teen culture: This was when the teenager started to rule, and he has ruled ever since. 

As West says , many things changed in the economic boom in the decades following the Second 
World War: "When you talk about the postwar period, the vast new affluence is a big factor in 
reorienting the culture to adolescent desire. You see a shift in cultural authority going to the young. 
Instead of kids who might take a job to be able to help with household expenses, all of a sudden that 
pocket money was going into the manufacture of a massive new culture. That conferred such 
importance to a period of adolescence that had never been there before." After generations of this 
celebration of youth, the adults have no confidence left: "Kids are planning expensive trips, going 
out unchaperoned, they are drinking, debauching, absolutely running amok, yet the parents say, T 
can't do anything about it.' Parents have abdicated responsibilities to give in to adolescent desire." 

She believes that "Where womanhood stands today is deeply affected by the death of grown-up. I 
would say the sexualized female is part of the phenomenon I'm talking about, so I don't think they're 


immune to the death of the grown-up. Women are still emulating young fashion. Where sex is more 
available, there are no longer the same incentives building toward married life, which once was a 
big motivation toward the maturing process." 

Is she right? Have we become a civilization of Peter Pans refusing to grow up? Have we been cut 
off from the past by disparaging everything old as outmoded? I know blogger Conservative Swede, 
who likes Friedrich Nietzsche, thinks we suffer from "slave morality," but I sometimes wonder 
whether we suffer from child morality rather than slave morality. However, there are other forces at 
work here as well. 

The welfare state encourages an infantilization of society where people return to childhood by being 
provided for by others. This creates not just a culture obsessed with youth but with adolescent 
irresponsibility. Many people live in a constant state of rebellion against not just their parents but 
their nation, their culture and their civilization. 

Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks one reason for the epidemic of self-destructiveness in Western 
societies is the avoidance of boredom: "For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives 
and cannot invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who 
have no religious belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and the 
creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness." 

According to him, what we are seeing now is "a society in which people demand to behave more or 
less as they wish, that is to say whimsically, in accordance with their kaleidoscopically changing 
desires, at the same time as being protected from the natural consequences of their own behaviour 
by agencies of the state. The result is a combination of Sodom and Gomorrah and a vast and 
impersonal bureaucracy of welfare." 

The welfare state deprives you of the possibility of deriving self-respect from your work. This can 
hurt a person's self-respect, but more so for men than for women because masculine identity is 
closely tied to providing for others. Stripped of this, male self-respect declines and society with it. 
Dalrymple also worries about the end of fatherhood, and believes that the worst child abusers are 
governments promoting the very circumstances in which child abuse and neglect are most likely to 
take place: "He who promotes single parenthood is indifferent to the fate of children." Fatherhood 
scarcely exists, except in the merest biological sense: 

"I worked in a hospital in which had it not been for the children of Indian immigrants, the 
illegitimacy rate of children born there would have approached one hundred per cent. It became an 
almost indelicate question to ask of a young person who his or her father was; to me, it was still an 
astounding thing to be asked, 'Do you mean my father now, at the moment?' as if it could change at 
any time and had in fact changed several times before." 

This is because "women are to have children merely because they want them, as is their 
government-given right, irrespective of their ability to bring them up, or who has to pay for them, or 
the consequences to the children themselves. Men are to be permanently infantilised, their income 
being in essence pocket money for them to spend on their enjoyments, having no serious 
responsibilities at all (beyond paying tax). Henceforth, the state will be father to the child, and the 
father will be child of the state." 

As Swedish writer Per Bylund explains : "Most of us were not raised by our parents at all. We were 
raised by the authorities in state daycare centers from the time of infancy; then pushed on to public 
schools, public high schools, and public universities; and later to employment in the public sector 
and more education via the powerful labor unions and their educational associations. The state is 
ever-present and is to many the only means of survival - and its welfare benefits the only possible 
way to gain independence." 

Though Sweden is arguably an extreme case, author Melanie Phillips notices the same trends in 
Britain, too: "Our culture is now deep into uncharted territory. Generations of family disintegration 


in turn are unravelling the fundamentals of civilised human behaviour. Committed fathers are 
crucial to their children's emotional development. As a result of the incalculable irresponsibility of 
our elites, however, fathers have been seen for the past three decades as expendable and disposable. 
Lone parenthood stopped being a source of shame and turned instead into a woman's inalienable 
right. The state has provided more and more inducements to women - through child benefit, council 
flats and other welfare provision - to have children without committed fathers. This has produced 
generations of women-only households, where emotionally needy girls so often become hopelessly 
inadequate mothers who abuse and neglect their own children - who, in turn, perpetuate the 
destructive pattern. This is culturally nothing less than suicidal." 

I sometimes wonder whether the modern West, and Western Europe in particular, should be dubbed 
the Fatherless Civilization. Fathers have been turned into a caricature and there is a striking 
demonization of traditional male values. Any person attempting to enforce rules and authority, a 
traditional male preserve, is seen as a Fascist and ridiculed, starting with God the Father. We end up 
with a society of vague fathers who can be replaced at the whim of the mothers at any given 
moment. Even the mothers have largely abdicated, leaving the upbringing of children to schools, 
kindergartens and television. In fashion and lifestyle, mothers imitate their daughters, not vice 

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled "the nanny state," but 
perhaps it could also be named "the husband state." Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of 
men was to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part 
of this task has been "outsourced" to the state, which helps explain why women in general give 
disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. According to anthropologist 
Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into 
"bureaugamy," a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In 
fact, it doesn't replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the 
children and cares for the elderly. 

0ystein Djupedal, Minister of Education and Research from the Socialist Left Party and responsible 
for Norwegian education from kindergartens via high schools to PhD level, has stated : "I think that 
it's simply a mistaken view of child-rearing to believe that parents are the best to raise children. 
'Children need a village,' said Hillary Clinton. But we don't have that. The village of our time is the 
kindergarten." He later retracted this statement, saying that parents have the main responsibility for 
raising children, but that "kindergartens are a fantastic device for children, and it is good for 
children to spend time in kindergarten before [they] start school." 

The problem is that some of his colleagues use the kindergarten as the blueprint for society as a 
whole, even for adults. In the fall of 2007, Norway's center- left government issued a warning to 140 
companies that still hadn't fulfilled the state-mandated quota of 40 percent women on their boards 
of directors. Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem stated that companies failing to meet the quota 
will face involuntary dissolution, despite the fact that many are within traditionally male-oriented 
branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance. She called the law "historic and 
radical" and said it will be enforced. 

Bekkemellem is thus punishing the naughty children who refuse to do as Mother State tells them to, 
even if these children happen to be private corporations. The state replaces the father in the sense 
that it provides for you financially, but it acts more like a mother in removing risks and turning 
society into a cozy, regulated kindergarten with ice cream and speech codes. 

Blog reader Tim W. thinks women tend to be more selfish than men vis-a-vis the opposite sex: 
"Men show concern for women and children while women.... well, they show concern for 
themselves and children. I'm not saying that individual women don't show concern for husbands or 
brothers, but as a group (or voting bloc) they have no particular interest in men's well-being. 
Women's problems are always a major concern but men's problems aren't. Every political candidate 
is expected to address women's concerns, but a candidate even acknowledging that men might have 


concerns worth addressing would be ostracized." What if men lived an average of five years and 
eight months longer than women? Well, if that were the case, we'd never hear the end of it: 
"Feminists and women candidates would walk around wearing buttons with 'five years, eight 
months' written on them to constantly remind themselves and the world about this horrendous 
inequity That this would happen, and surely it would, says something about the differing natures of 
male and female voters." 

Bernard Chapin interviewed Dr. John Lott at Frontpage Magazine. According to Lott, "I think that 
women are generally more risk averse then men are and they see government as one way of 
providing insurance against life's vagaries. I also think that divorced women with kids particularly 
turn towards government for protection. Simply giving women the right to vote explained at least a 
third of the growth in government for about 45 years." 

He thinks this "explains a lot of the government's growth in the US but also the rest of the world 
over the last century. When states gave women the right to vote, government spending and tax 
revenue, even after adjusting for inflation and population, went from not growing at all to more than 
doubling in ten years. As women gradually made up a greater and greater share of the electorate, the 
size of government kept on increasing. This continued for 45 years as a lot of older women who 
hadn't been used to voting when suffrage first passed were gradually replaced by younger women. 
After you get to the 1960s, the continued growth in government is driven by higher divorce rates. 
Divorce causes women with children to turn much more to government programs." The 
liberalization of abortion also led to more single parent families. 

Diana West thinks what we saw in the counterculture of the 1960s was a leveling of all sorts of 
hierarchies, both of learning and of authority. From that emerged the leveling of culture and by 
extension Multiculturalism. She also links this trend to the nanny state: 

"In considering the strong links between an increasingly paternalistic nanny state and the death of 
the grown-up, I found that Tocqueville (of course) had long ago made the connections. He tried to 
imagine under what conditions despotism could come to the United States. He came up with a 
vision of the nation characterized, on the one hand, by an 'innumerable multitude of men, alike and 
equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut 
their souls,' and, on the other, by the 'immense protective power' of the state. 'Banal pleasures' and 
'immense state power' might have sounded downright science-fictional in the middle of the 19th 
century; by the start of the 21st century, it begins to sound all too familiar. Indeed, speaking of the 
all-powerful state, he wrote: 'It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its 
charges for a man's life, but, on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood.' 
Perhaps the extent to which we, liberals and conservatives alike, have acquiesced to our state's 
parental authority shows how far along we, as a culture, have reached Tocqueville's state of 
'perpetual childhood.'" 

This problem is even worse in Western Europe, a region with more elaborate welfare states than the 
USA and which has lived under the American military umbrella for generations, thus further 
enhancing the tendency for adolescent behavior. 

The question, which was indirectly raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s in his book 
Democracy in America, is this: If democracy of universal suffrage means that everybody's opinion 
is as good as everybody else's, will this sooner or later turn into a society where everybody's choices 
are also as good as everybody else's, which leads to cultural relativism? Tocqueville wrote at a time 
when only men had the vote. Will universal suffrage also lead to a situation where women vote 
themselves into possession of men's finances while reducing their authority and creating powerful 
state regulation of everything? I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that the current 
situation isn't sustainable. The absence of fatherhood has created a society full of social pathologies, 
and the lack of male self-confidence has made us easy prey for our enemies. If the West is to 
survive, we need to reassert a healthy dose of male authority. In order to do so we need to roll back 
the welfare state. Perhaps we need to roll back some of the excesses of Western Feminism , too. 


Fjordman: the European Union and the islamization of Europe 

February 9, 2008 7:03 AM 

Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch recently suggested a number of things Europeans can do to halt 
Islamization. The proposals were good, but I think we should focus on the most important obstacle: 
the European Union. I've suggested in the past that the EU is the principal motor behind the 
Islamization of Europe, and that the entire organization needs to be dismantled as soon as possible, 
otherwise nothing substantial can ever be done about the Muslim invasion. At the Gates of Vienna 
blog, I am writing a text called " Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union ," which can be 
translated into other languages and be republished when it is completed. 

As Bat Ye'or demonstrates in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis , senior EU leaders have 
actively been working for years to merge Europe with the Arab world. They are now feeling 
confident enough to say this openly. The British Foreign Minister David Miliband in November 
2007 stated that the European Union should work towards including Middle Eastern and North 
African countries, as this would "extend stability." He also said that the EU must "keep our 
promises to Turkey" regarding EU membership. 

The EU involves the free movement of people across borders. If it expands to the Middle East, 
hundreds of millions of Muslims will have free access to Germany, Italy, France, Britain, Sweden, 
the Czech Republic and Austria. If Turkey becomes a member, it means that Greeks, Bulgarians and 
others who have fought against oppression by Ottoman Turks for centuries will now be flooded with 
Muslims from a rapidly re-Islamizing Turkey. The same goes for Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and 
others who fought against Muslims for centuries. 

The EU's Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini states that Europe must relax its 
immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20 million "Africans and Asians" during the next 
two decades. Most of these "Africans and Asians" come from the predominantly Muslim countries 
of North Africa and the Greater Middle East. The EU thus decided to flood Europe with tens of 
millions of Muslims at the same time as peaceful Europeans demonstrating against the Islamization 
of Europe were brutally harassed by the police in the EU capital of Brussels. Frattini has also 
banned the use of the phrase Islamic terrorism: "People who commit suicide attacks or criminal 
activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this 
religion." He thinks we shouldn't use the word "immigration," either, we should talk about 

While Dutch politicians, in what was until recently a peaceful country, have been killed for being 
too critical of Islam, while Islamic terror attacks have murdered people in London and Madrid, 
while more terror attacks are planned every single day from Italy via Paris to Denmark, and while 
people from Sweden to Germany are subject to Muslim street violence and harassment, EU leaders 
want to increase Europe's Muslim population by tens of millions in a few years. This is criminal and 
evil, pure and simple. 

In Cologne, Germany , a Muslim teenager who wanted to mug a 20-year-old German man was killed 
in an act of self-defense, according to witnesses. This led to angry protests from Muslims. 
Apparently, non-Muslims are not supposed to defend themselves from attacks. This violence is 
usually labelled "crime," but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad . 

Those who know Islamic history, as described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by 
Robert Spencer..., know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and 


parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad and early 
Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know where crime ends and Jihad begins. In 
the city of Oslo, it is documented that some of the criminal gangs also have close ties to Jihadist 
groups at home and abroad. As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some 
Muslims as a God-given "hunting licence," granting them the right to assault and even murder non- 
Muslims. It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up a minority of the population in France, 
they make up an estimated seventy percent of French prison inmates. 

Why would anybody in their right mind want to import Islam, the most destructive force on the 
planet? Are EU leaders naive? I don't think so, at least not all of them. You cannot maintain political 
power in the long run if you are totally naive. 

We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and 
change at will. The Multicultural society is "colorful," an adjective normally attached to furniture or 
curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have 
one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don't you get tired of that old 
sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it's slightly less 
comfortable than the old one, but it's very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the 
neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume 
to go with that sharia? 

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries 
in the future, this doesn't matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of 
everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale with 
another one won't make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different 
ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies "basically 
mean the same thing." They simply don't view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus 
won't spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. 

In The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West , Lee Harris writes that: "What strikes 
us as irrationalities in the economic systems of Third World nations, such as the red tape 
documented by [Peruvian economist Hernando] de Soto, is not irrational at all from the point of 
view of the dominant elite: It is part of what keeps them dominant. With enough red tape, they can 
stay king of the mountain forever." 

This reminds me a great deal of what the EU is doing, attempting to create a permanent oligarchy by 
keeping the native population in line though a combination of confusion, bureaucracy and 
intimidation from imported Muslims. 

Far from being an irrelevant detail, religion is the heart and blood of any civilization. The greatest 
change (until now) in my country's history was when we adopted Christianity instead of the Norse 
religion. This changed the entire fabric of our culture. We became integrated into the mainstream of 
Western civilization at about the same time as we went from being a tribal society to a genuine state. 
Maybe Christianity helped in creating the foundations of nation states with an individualistic 
culture. If so, perhaps changing the religion is beneficial for those who want to replace nation states 
with authoritarian transnational entities, for instance the European Union. Islamic societies are 
always authoritarian. Those who want to abolish the democratic system and rule as an 
unaccountable oligarchy thus naturally prefer Islam. 


The EU is an awful organization even if you don't take Muslim immigration into account. Former 
Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy . who is not particularly preoccupied with Islam, fears that the 
European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union: "The sooner we finish with the 
EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries." 

The brilliant French political thinker Montesquieu advocated that the executive, legislative, and 
judicial branches of government should be assigned to different bodies, each of them not powerful 
enough alone to impose its will on society. This is because "constant experience shows us that every 
man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go." This 
separation of powers is almost totally absent in the EU, where there is weak to non-existent 
separation between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches, and where all of them 
function more or less without the consent of the public. 

As Montesquieu warned, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, 
or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest 
the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner." 
He also stated that "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." The problem with the EU is not just 
the content of laws, but their volume. Law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals by laws 
regulating speech and behavior, while real criminals rule the streets. This will either lead to a police 
state, to a total breakdown in law and order, or both. 

At least two conditions must be fulfilled in order to prevent the arbitrary use of power. The first one 
is a system of formal checks and balances, giving the possibility of peacefully removing officials 
who are not doing their job. The second is transparency, so people know what their representatives 
are doing. The EU deliberately ignores both these conditions, but especially the latter. Vast 
quantities of power have been transferred to shady backrooms and structures the average citizen 
hardly knows exist. Eurabia was created through such channels. 

The pompous former French president Valery Giscard dEstaing declared that the creation of the 
proposed EU Constitution was Europe's "Philadelphia moment," alluding to the Philadelphia 
Convention or Constitutional Convention in the newly formed the United States of America in 
1787. The USA has its flaws, but if Mr. Giscard d'Estaing had actually understood the American 
Constitution, he would have discovered that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others took 
great care to implement a number of checks and balances in the new state, precisely what is lacking 
in the EU. The American constitution is relatively short and understandable, whereas the EU 
Constitution is hundreds of pages long, largely incomprehensible and displays an almost sharia-like 
desire to regulate all aspects of human life. After it was rejected by Dutch and French voters, the 
Constitution has been renamed and is now being smuggled through the back door. 

Madison, Jefferson, George Washington and the American Founding Fathers acted in the open and 
were generally elected by their peers and applauded for their actions. Contrast this with Jean 
Monnet, who is credited with having laid the foundations of the EU, despite the fact that most EU 
citizens haven't heard of him. He was never elected to any public office, but worked behind the 
scenes to implement a secret agenda. I read an interview with a senior Brussels lobbyist who dubbed 
Monnet "the most successful lobbyist in history." To this day, the EU capital of Brussels is 
dominated by lobbyists . The Americans in Washington D.C. have their fair share of lobbyists, too, 
and this can be problematic at times. The difference is that the EU capital is dominated ONLY by 
lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats, with little real popular influence. Those who read the excellent 
British blog EU Referendum regularly will know that this secretive modus operandi is still very 
much alive in the European Union. 

Frankly, I don't think the EU has the right to use the term "European." Those inhabiting the 


European continent are first and foremost Germans, Dutchmen, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, 
Portuguese etc. "Europe" has existed mainly to protect the continent against Islamic expansionism. 
Charles Martel created Europe when he defeated the Arab invasion in the seventh century, aided by 
people such as Pelayo, who started the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula, John Hunyadi and 
Lazar of Serbia who fought against the Turks in the Balkans and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, 
who beat the Ottomans during the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The EU is actively trying to undo 
everything Charles Martel and these men achieved. This makes it the anti-European Union, an evil 
organization with no moral legitimacy whatsoever. 

The EU is gradually reducing the indigenous people of an entire continent to the likely future status 
of second-rate citizen in their own countries. It is quite possibly the greatest betrayal in the history 
of European civilization since the fall of the Roman Empire, yet it is hailed as a "peace project" in 
the media. It is shameful to witness the bullying displayed by EU leaders vis-a-vis the Serbs, who 
are being forced to give up their land to Muslim thugs. This template will eventually be used against 
all Europeans. As Srdja Trifkovic warns, even if the Serbs are robbed of Kosovo, Muslims will not 
thank the West: 

"In Europe most nations want to defend themselves—even the ultra-tolerant Dutch have seen the 
light after Theo van Gogh's murder—but cannot do so because they are hamstrung by a ruling class 
composed of guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers. Their hold on the political power, the media, 
and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be 
unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. If Europe is to survive, they 
must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the 
test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat. For those reasons too, Serbia must 
not give up Kosovo. By giving it up it would encourage the spirit that seeks the death of Europe and 
its surrender to the global totalitarianism of Muhammad's successors. Not for the first time, in 
Kosovo the Serbs are fighting a fight that is not theirs alone." 

Some hope we can keep the "positive" aspects of the EU and not "throw out the baby with the bath 
water." I beg to differ. The EU is all bath water, no baby. The EU got off on the wrong path from its 
very inception, and is now so flawed that it simply cannot be reformed. Appeasement of Islam is so 
deeply immersed in the structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamization of 
Europe is to dismantle the European Union. All of it. 


The birth of the eurabian empire 

Monday, May 05, 2008 

After reading the nightmarish statements by British Prime Minister Brown regarding his globalist 
ideology, I got inspired to write a post. I'm always told I write good essays, but perhaps a bit too 
long, so here's a quick one of less than one thousand words, which is my definition of a haiku. 

The European Union is an empire. 

No, really. Jose Manuel Barroso, the leader of the European Commission, the unelected and 
unaccountable government for half a billion people, which is just now negotiating the surrender of 
an entire continent to the Islamic world, has stated in public that the EU is an empire. 

Before you start laughing, think about it for a minute. Maybe we think it's ridiculous to see the EU 
as an empire, but Barroso 's statement clearly shows that many people in leading positions do think 
like this. It would make sense to remember that all empires in 
human history have been created through war. The Romans didn't 
create the largest empire in the world by being fluffy little bunnies, 
and neither did Genghis Khan. 

If the EU is an empire, that means a war is being waged against 
somebody. And it is: A cultural and demographic war waged by 
mass immigration against the indigenous people of an entire 
continent — Europe. Whereas empires are normally created by 
waging a war against other peoples, the EU is the first empire in 
history created by allowing other peoples to wage a war against 
your own. 

A couple of older posts on the issue: 

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso expressed unease with the prospect of a 
second Dutch constitution referendum talking to Dutch papers ahead of a visit to The Hague later 
this week. "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more 
complicated and less predictable," he said, asking "every member state" considering a referendum 
to "think twice," according to Het Financieele Dagblad. Mr Barroso in his previous job as 
Portuguese prime minister in 2004 backed a referendum on the EU constitution in his own country 
— but since then his thinking has changed, he indicated. "I was in favour of a referendum as a 
prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a 
referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the 
euro, do you think these would have passed?" the commission chief asked according to De 

Anthony Coughlan , a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, notes that in every EU 
member state at present the majority of laws come from Brussels. Why do national politicians and 
representatives accept this situation? He suggests a plausible explanation: 

"At national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of 
the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, 
and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters 


in the country. Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, 
where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question 
becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, 
making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does. 
"National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the 
final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating 
increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of 
government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the 

EU ministers see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making. By participating 
in the EU, they can also free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national 
parliaments. According to Coughlan, "the great bulk of European laws are never debated at council 
of minister level, but are formally rubber-stamped if agreement has been reached further down 
amongst the civil servants on the 300 council sub-committees or the 3,000 or so committees that are 
attached to the commission." EU integration represents "a gradual coup by government executives 
against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them." This process is now 
sucking the reality of power from "traditional government institutions, while leaving these still 
formally intact. They still keep their old names — parliament, government, supreme court — so that 
their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed." 

My interpretation: The European Union — or the Eurabian Empire if you will — is a naked power 
grab by the elites in order to dismantle the nations there are supposed to serve. Instead of being 
mere servants of the people in smaller countries, they aspire to become members of an 
unaccountable elite ruling a vast empire as they see fit. This is why they continue to promote mass 
immigration as if nothing has happened even if people get blown up, raped, mugged and murdered 
in their own cities. They simply don't care. They are cynical generals on a warpath. Ordinary 
citizens are simply cannon fodder, pawns to be sacrificed in the conquest of their glorious, new 
empire. Mass immigration is used to crush all nation states simultaneously so that the natives have 
no real alternatives to flee to, and no countries can come to the aid of others against the advancing 


The causes of anti-semitism: preliminary discussions 

Friday, May 16, 2008 

As I have mentioned in another essay , Andrew G. Bostom, author of the excellent The Legacy of 
Jihad , has asked me to do a review of his upcoming book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism , 
which I will publish in early June. Before this, however, I intend to write about the causes of 
Christian anti-Semitism. I will probably publish the full essay about this at Atlas Shrugs , the 
website of Pamela Geller, but before I do so I will arrange a preliminary debate at the Gates of 
Vienna blog. 

I know this is a sensitive subject, but writing about sensitive subjects is our business. In his book 
Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization , Remi Brague explains how the Romans 
admired the earlier culture of the Greeks. Christians also recognized that the Jews had an older 
religious tradition than they did themselves and that they were greatly indebted to it. Christian 
Europeans thus inherited a twin " cultural secondarity " in relation to their Greek and Hebrew parent 
cultures. Brague sees this phenomenon of cultural secondarity as the very essence of the West, and 
dubs it "Romanity" As he says, Christians recognize that the Hebrew Bible (the "Old Testament") 
is still valid and authentic, and Jews recognize that Christians have Frrtmfrir Culhitv 
adopted the entire Hebrew Bible unchanged. Muslims, on the other a Theory ofwesiem civilization 
hand, believe that Christians and Jews have falsified their texts, which 
accordingly have no specific value in themselves: 

One should be careful, therefore, not to make an implicit analogy 
between what one calls, with an expression that besides is quite 
superficial, the "three monotheisms." Islam is not to Christianity (not 
even to Christianity and to Judaism) what Christianity is to Judaism. 
Admittedly, in both cases, the mother religion rejects the legitimacy of 
the daughter religion. And in both cases the daughter religion turned . 
on its mother religion. But on the level of principles, the attitude 
toward the mother religion is not the same. While Islam rejects the 
authenticity of the documents on which Judaism and Christianity are 
founded, Christianity, in the worst case, recognizes at least that the 
Jews are the faithful guardians of a text that it considers as sacred as 
the text which is properly its own. In this way, the relationship of 
secondarity toward a preceding religion is found between Christianity and 
Judaism and between these two alone. 

To name one example, the leading Jewish medieval physician and 
philosopher Maimonides directed that Jews could teach rabbinic law to 
Christians, but not to Muslims. For Muslims, he said, will interpret what 
they are taught "according to their erroneous principles and they will 
oppress us. [F]or this reason... they hate all [non-Muslims] who live 
among them." But the Christians, he said, "admit that the text of the 
Torah, such as we have it, is intact." 

Ucmi Brague 

Maimonides lamented the aggression and humiliation Jews faced from Muslims: "You know, my 
brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of 
Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us. . . No nation 
has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has 
been able to reduce us as they have... We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and 


absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear." 

This is quite interesting, given that he lived in the Iberian Peninsula under Islamic occupation and 
that we are now told how Spain and Portugal under Islamic rule were beacons of tolerance. Islamic 
apologist Karen Armstrong says that "until 1492, Jews and Christians lived peaceably and 
productively together in Muslim Spain — a coexistence that was impossible elsewhere in Europe." 
The U.S. State Department has proclaimed that "during the Islamic period in Spain, Jews, 
Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and mutual respect, creating a diverse society in 
which vibrant exchanges of ideas took place." 

Nevertheless, it is certainly true that Jews did suffer from repeated attacks and pogroms in Christian 
Europe over many centuries, and they were expelled from Spain and Portugal after the Reconquista. 
Because of this, Remi Brague believes that although individual Jews have been important 
throughout European history after Rome and have in some cases been intellectually influential 
(Maimonides, for instance), Judaism as a religion was forced to play a low-key role in European 

Judaism as such has only been able to exercise an influence on European culture from a rather late 
date. The Jewish communities have been excluded for a long time from any participation in political 
power that goes beyond the private role of certain of its members. In order for Judaism to make 
itself understood publicly and get away from the confidential character imposed on its written 
productions by the exclusive use of Hebrew, one had to await the emancipation. This arrived in the 
eighteenth century, first in Germanic countries (Austria and Prussia), and then continued on in the 
wake of the French Revolution. During this period, Europe was already a cultural reality, and it was 
already conscious of its unity on this particular level. In this way, Judaism has been able to leave its 
mark, a decisive mark, on an already constituted Europe, but it has contributed only a little to 
making Europe. 

The emancipation led to an explosion of Jewish creativity in nineteenth century and pre-Holocaust 
twentieth century Europe. By far the most important reason for this was the secularization of the 
Christians, which allowed the Jews a more equal place in society, but was it also a result of a 
secularization of the Jews themselves? According to The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the 
Knowledge Economy by Joel Mokyr, "the failure of European Jews over many centuries to 
contribute to useful knowledge (as defined here) in anything like a proportional amount in view of 
their literacy and learning remains something of a puzzle." To Mokyr, the creation of useful 
knowledge presupposes that the research agenda "is not entirely dominated by knowledge with no 
conceivable immediate application (as was the case, for instance, for Jewish rabbis)." He also writes 
that "Many societies in antiquity spent a great deal of time studying the movements of heavenly 
bodies, which did little to butter the turnips (though it helped work out the calendar). For many 
generations Jewish sages spent their lives on the exegesis of the scriptures, adding much to wisdom 
and legal scholarship but little to useful knowledge as defined here." 

I think Mokyr is being a little bit too harsh here. There is not necessarily a contradiction between 
being a religious scholar and a secular scholar. A number of Christians have managed this well, and 
so have quite a few Jews, both in ancient and in modern times. Nevertheless, it is possible to argue 
that Jews have in certain periods focused too much on scriptures alone, as opposed to secular 
knowledge. A similar example on a much larger scale is to be found in medieval and early modern 
China, where the imperial examination system ensured that a significant proportion of talented men 
had access to literacy and learning. However, these examinations tended to focus on Confucian 
classics instead of engineering, mathematics and science, and thus added less to the development of 


useful knowledge than might otherwise have been possible. 

Was the Nazi Holocaust during the Second World War an extension of traditional anti-Semitism in 
Europe? Robert Spencer in Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't argues that it 
was not, although the Nazis certainly tapped into traditional anti-Semitism to shore up support for 
their actions. According to Spencer: 




Why Christianity Is 
and 1 si.* m Isn't 

Historian Daniel Jonah Goldenhagen minces no words: 'The 
main responsibility for producing the all-time leading Western 
hatred [of Jews] lies with Christianity. More specifically, with 
the Catholic Church.' However, Rabbi David G. Dalin, a 
historian of the Catholic Church's relations with the Jews, says 
this is 'bad history and bad scholarship.' Malcolm Hay, who 
chronicles in searing detail the mistreatment Jews suffered in 
Europe at the hands of Christians, notes also that the most basic 
right, the right to live, was 'one which no Pope, no Catholic 
theologian, has ever denied to the Jews — a right which no ruler 
in Christendom ever denied to them until the advent of Adolf 
Hitler.' Clearly, however, the Nazis sought justification for their 
actions from Christian anti-Semitism 

Dalin points out that the papal record is not monochromatic: 
"The historical fact is that popes have often spoken out in defense of the Jews, have protected them 
during times of persecution and pogroms, and have protected their right to worship freely in their 
synagogues. Popes have traditionally defended Jews from wild anti-Semitic allegations. Popes 
regularly condemned anti-Semites who sought to incite violence against Jews." 

Pope Leo X ordered the entire Talmud to be printed by a Christian printer in Rome so as to 
discourage anti-Semitic rumors about its contents. This is good, but it is also indirectly a testimony 
to the fact that anti-Semitism was widespread enough to constitute a real problem in many parts of 
Europe. In early Christian times, clear anti-Semitism was expressed by some Christian leaders, for 
instance John Chrysostom. 

According to Robert Spencer, "the Nazis reprinted John Chrysostom's words in support of their 
activities. There is nevertheless a large gulf between the anti- Judaism of Chrysostom and other 
Christian leaders, and that of the Nazis, who were for the most part anti-Christian and certainly anti- 
Catholic. Their anti-Semitism was rooted in Darwinian racial theories that posited the Aryans as the 
master race and the Jews as untermenschenr He also points out that "While Christian anti-Semitism 
has been minimized, it still exists, particularly in the Middle East where some Christians have 
absorbed the anti-Semitism of the Islamic culture which surrounds them." 

The rabid rhetoric of the Nazis regarding Jews is widely supported by Muslims today. The Iranian 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the Jewish state of Israel a "filthy bacteria." This is 
now sometimes presented as something Muslims have "imported" from Europeans. Historian 
Bernard Lewis in his book What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the 
Middle East states that "The earliest specifically anti-Semitic statements in the Middle East 
occurred among the Christian minorities, and can usually be traced back to European originals." 

This is clearly nonsense. Christian hatred of Jews does exist, but Jew hatred has a much stronger 
scriptural basis in Islam than it has in Christianity The Australian Jihadist David Hicks , who has 
trained with Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, writes that "Muslims fight against Jews and they kill 
them." He can base this directly in Islamic religious scriptures, both the Koran and the hadith. For 


instance, one authentic (according to Sunni Muslims) hadith states that: Allah's Apostle said, "The 
Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be 
hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." ( Bukhari 4.52.177 ) 

There is nothing like this in the Christian Gospels. After all, Jesus of Nazareth was himself as Jew, 
as were many of his early disciples. Muhammad was not. He spent his days murdering many Jews, 
among them the Medinan tribe of Banu Quraiza . Jesus never killed anybody, nor did he encourage 
others to do so for him. 


The greatest betrayal in history 

Thursday, June 19, 2008 

The scale of violent crime white people are being subject to in countries such as Sweden resembles 
warfare. Not only does the state not protect people against this racist 
violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social 
contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is 
either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy. 

The numbers in Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere, are worse than we are 
told. They are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the 
media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by: 

A. The warm weather/global warming, 

B. Alcohol, 

C. Internet dating sites, and 

D. A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than 

These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other. 

Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally 
banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested , brought in front of the local court and sentenced for 
"hate speech" for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to 

Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the 
massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be "good for 
the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase. Nobody among the 
Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more 
and more hysterical witch-hunts against "racism" by the white indigenous people. It's state- 
sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in 
short: The greatest betrayal in history. 

This is part of a massive and prolonged campaign of psychological warfare against whites in 
general that has been going on for several generations now, to strip whites of any sense of pride or 
self-respect. The current Swedish "conservative" prime minister has stated in public that his 
county's traditional culture was merely barbarism, and that anything good was imported from 
abroad. While Swedish girls get gang raped by Muslim immigrants who are met with "respect for 
their diverse culture," Swedish boys are being systematically indoctrinated with radical Feminism, 
in the most extreme cases being forced to wear female clothes and take female names by 
kindergarten teachers. 

On the International Women's Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing 
pro-Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked "brown" feminists. And no, by that she 
did not mean feminists with a dark skin, but those championing "Fascist," racist and Islamophobic 
forces. She is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of 
the Red Youth, the country's "revolutionary youth league." 


Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the 
nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. 
Marxists do not care about "women's liberty" They do not care about anybody's liberty They 
support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the 
forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against "Islamophobia" and 
"prejudice" against the world's most anti-female religion is highly revealing. 

Attacks on Western history in order to instill shame into Western youths, a shame that militates 
against their thinking that their civilization is worth defending, are very common, especially 
targeting female students. Here is a quote from the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is 
and Islam Isn 't by Robert Spencer: 

A white American student, 'Rachel,' unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told 
American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: 'Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don't see 
anything about my culture to be proud of. It's all nothing. My race is just nothing.... 
Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that's really great. 
You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.' Yeagley mused: 'The 
Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its 
women are on the ground.... When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the 
serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of 
criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their 
eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us 
constituted a higher authority. . ..Who had conquered Rachel's people? What had led her 
to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?' 

I have engaged in endless debates with people who see no relationship between traditional 
economic Marxism, as promoted by Karl Marx himself, and today's "cultural Marxism." But they 
miss the point. The most important mutation that happened with the various strains of Marxism 
during the twentieth century was that they understood that the traditional doctrine that a Socialist 
society was "inevitable" was incorrect. Their revolutions didn't happen, in the West at least. But this 
didn't mean that they gave up their end goals, which have largely remained the same. 

They just changed the strategy needed in order to achieve these main goals, and focused on 
breaking down Western culture in every way, until there was no resistance left to implement their 
totalitarian society. That's what has been going on for decades now, where traditional attitudes to 
marriage etc. have gradually become banned by law. Turning Western women, especially white 
women, into weapons of mass destruction against their own civilization has been a key component 
of this strategy, and unfortunately a rather successful one. 

Also, I don't buy this "blaming Western men" stuff. I'm tired of it. If we are guilty of anything, it is 
of being too kind too Western women, and letting them get away with their nonsense too often. 

If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women 
cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid 
and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women 
themselves voted to create. 

There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a 
minority. I've been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in 
general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding 
rapes: It's about the "patriarchy," not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the 
Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said. 

As one of Marilyn French's characters said, "All men are rapists, and that's all they are." In Norway 


in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and 
the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a "discount" on the minor compensations 
they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female 
blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more. 

Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of 
radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should 
receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of 
"society." Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti- 
female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell "racism" 
at men who suggest it's not a good idea. 

Women cannot be cruel to decent men and kind to evil men and expect that this has no 
consequences in the long run. Why should Western men worry about women who show us nothing 
but hostility? Maybe we'll just be patriarchal simpletons, drink beer, fart and watch football on TV? 

What we are dealing with in the Western world is demographic warfare closely aligned with 
psychological warfare, aimed at breaking down our self-confidence and self-awareness to the point 
where our technological superiority is rendered useless because we are ashamed of ourselves or 
incapable of articulating what we should fight for. Sun Tzu in The Art of War said that wars are won 
in the temples before they are fought. The mass media are the temples of our time, which means 
that we are currently losing badly. 

Robert D. Kaplan says that he "re-read both The Art of War by the 6th-century BCE Chinese court 
minister Sun- Tzu and On War by the early 19th-century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz. 
What struck me straight away, thanks to my recent travels-in-arms, was not what either author said, 
but what both assumed. Both Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz believe — in their states, their sovereigns, 
their homelands. Because they believe, they are willing to fight. This is so clear that they never need 
to state it, and they never do. . . Both oppose militarism, but accept the reality of war, and from that 
acceptance reason that any policy lacking martial vigor — any policy that fails to communicate a 
warrior spirit — only makes war more likely." 

According to Clausewitz, "In affairs so dangerous as war, false ideas proceeding from kindness of 
heart are precisely the worst... The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take 
war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of 
humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." 

As a final note on this whole sorry state of affairs — the Swedish parliament passed a law yesterday 
which orders comprehensive electronic surveillance of all citizens: 

"Swedish lawmakers voted late on Wednesday in favour of a controversial bill allowing 
all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security." 

This law will make Sweden more totalitarian than even the former Communist dictatorship of East 


On "moderate islam" 

Thursday, August 21, 2008 

Regular Atlas readers are quite familiar with this subject matter. I have long derided the "moderate 
Islam" meme as a theory with no basis in reality or history It's wishful thinking, dangerous and 
suicidal. Yes, of course there are moderate Muslims — laspsed, secular Muslims but pious Muslims 
are jihadis. And while I await a "Vatican 2" in Islam, Fjordman writes his latest essay for Atlas. 

Fjordman August 21, 2008 

I do not believe that there is such a thing as a moderate Islam, and have been quite clear about that 
since I started writing. I disagree with observers such as Dr. Daniel Pipes on this particular point. I'd 
like to say to Pipes that I enjoy much of his work. I have linked to it a number of times before and 
intend to do so in the future as well. However, I get increasingly disturbed by how many people 
keep repeating the mantra of reaching out to "moderate Islam" when I have yet to see a single piece 
of evidence that a moderate Islam actually exists. 

When asked about where to find a moderate Islam, Daniel Pipes has repeatedly referred to the late 
Sudanese scholar Mahmud Muhammud Taha, whose ideas are available in English in the book The 
Second Message of Islam . Taha's disciple and translator Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'Im, author of the 
book Toward an Islamic Reformation , has this to say about the ideas of his teacher: 

"fTJhe Medina message is not the fundamental, universal, eternal message of Islam. 
That founding message is from Mecca. So, the reformation of Islam must be based on a 
return to the Mecca message. In order to reconcile the Mecca and Medina messages 
into a single system, Muslim jurists have said that some of the Medina verses have 
abrogated the corresponding earlier verses from Mecca. Although the abrogation did 
take place, and it was logical and valid jurisprudence at one time, it was a 
postponement, not a permanent abrogation. " 

Because of this, An-Na'Im thinks that "The Mecca verses should now be made the basis 
of the law and the Medina verses should be abrogated. This counter-abrogation will 
result in the total conciliation between Islamic law and the modern development of 
human rights and civil liberties. In this sense we reformers are superfundamentalists. " 

I have read the books of both Taha and An-Na'Im closely. I find that their writing sounds better the 
first time you read it than it does the second time. For instance, Taha suggests that the reason why 
Muhammad and the early Muslims "had to" murder so many people was because these individuals 
didn't accept Islam peacefully. Not only does Taha not indicate that he thinks this was wrong, he 
describes armed Jihad as a "surgical tool" which can be used to implement true Islam. He hints that 
this hopefully won't be needed now because people are "mature" enough to know that Islam is good 
for them and will submit without coercion. 

What happens to those who don't like Islam and have no intention of submitting? Taha doesn't say, 
but judging from his writings, he seems to believe that violence is justified against such people. It is 
hard to see in what way this is supposed to represent a "reformist" way of thinking. According to 
orthodox Islamic theology, Muslims are not allowed to physically attack non-Muslims unless these 
have first been invited to embrace Islam yet have failed to do so, in which case they are fair game. 
In other words, Muslims should try to convert people peacefully first and then start killing them 
afterwards if they refuse. Taha thus advocates a traditional concept of Jihad, one not qualitatively 
different from that espoused by Jihadist terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. 

Although Taha resembles an apologist for Jihadist violence, he was still considered so unorthodox 


by traditional Muslims that he was executed as an apostate. Besides, his ideas are built on 
questionable "truths" about the Koran. Consider what the German professor Christoph Luxenberg 
claims in his pioneering work: 

"In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures 
which might have been used in sacred Christian services. In the second place, one may see in the 
Koran the beginning of a preaching directed toward transmitting the belief in the Sacred Scriptures 
to the pagans of Mecca, in the Arabic language. Its socio-political sections, which are not 
especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran 
was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and 
thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society. " 

In other words, if Mr. Luxenberg is correct, what we now call the Meccan chapters of the Koran are 
peaceful precisely because they aren't "Islamic" at all, they are based on Christian texts. The 
"authentic" texts related to Muhammad and his companions, whoever the historical Muhammad 
really was, are the much more violent and aggressive chapters we classify as Medinan. This is 
precisely the opposite of what Taha and An-Na'Im suggest. From a secular point of view, their ideas 
are thus extremely vulnerable to historical criticism, and from an Islamic point of view, it's difficult 
to see how their ideas can be implemented. 

After reading through much of the literature on the subject, I would divide "Muslim reformers" into 
three categories. The first, and by far the largest category, consists of liars, opportunists and taqiyya 
artists; people who want to infiltrate our societies rather than reform Islam. The second category 
consists of people who may be well-meaning but simply don't understand the issues involved. 
Irshad Manji, for instance, is not a bad person, but she just doesn't know very much about Islamic 
history. The third and smallest category consists of people who are knowledgeable and genuinely 
desire reform. The German-Syrian scholar Bassam Tibi could be placed here. I find some of his 
work interesting, but even he is incoherent and unconvincing in presenting the case for how a 
moderate Islam should look like. 

Where does Taha belong in this picture? Frankly, I suspect it's among category 1. He is 
theologically unconvincing, and some of the passages he writes are outright disturbing if you read 
them closely and analyze what he's actually saying. The following quotes, with page references, are 
from the book The Second Message of Islam by Mahmud Muhammud Taha. 

Page 74: "Reciprocity (al-mu'awadah) in the case of fornication is a fixed punishment 
(hadd) of either stoning to death or whipping. Since the fornicator sought easy pleasure 
without regard for Shari'a, he is made to suffer pain in order to recover his senses. An 
individual tends to lean more towards pleasure than towards pain. By pulling the self to 
pain, when it succumbs to prohibited pleasure, he reestablishes a certain equilibrium and 
avoids recklessness and folly. The fixed punishment for drinking alcohol is based on the 
same principle. A person who takes alcohol wishes to numb his mind, thereby trying to 
escape reality. The pain of whipping is intended to bring him back to face bitter reality, 
so that he may use his clear mind to improve this reality'" 

Page 75: "Islam, in its essence, is not a religion according to the common meaning of 
the word, but rather a science, its dogma being merely transitional to its scientific 

Page 130: "We have said that the Qur'an was divided between al-iman and al-islam, as 
well as being revealed in two parts as Meccan and Medinese. The Meccan Qur'an was 
revealed first. In other words, people were invited to adopt Islam [in the ultimate sense] 
first, and when they failed to do so, and it was practically demonstrated that they were 
below its standard, they were addressed in accordance with their abilities." 


My comment: What Taha means by this quote, as he makes clear in other passages, is that Muslims 
during the early Mecca phase invited people to accept Islam. When some of them refused to do so, 
Muslims had the right to start killing people and force them to accept Islam. Taha indicates that this 
principle should apply now, too. He also makes it perfectly clear that his definition of "freedom" is 
identical with sharia, and that those who abuse their freedom by not living according to sharia 
should face armed Jihad until they do. It's for their own good. 

Page 134: "In this way, all the verses of persuasion, though they constitute the primary 
or original principle, were abrogated or repealed by the verses of compulsion (jihad). 
This exception was necessitated by the circumstances of the time and the inadequacy of 
the human capability to discharge properly the duty of freedom at that time." 

"Some Muslim scholars believe that Islamic wars were purely defensive wars, a 
mistaken belief prompted by their keenness to refute claims by the Orientalists that 
Islam spread by means of the sword. In fact, the sword was used to curtail the abuse of 
freedom. Islam used persuasion for thirteen years in propagating its clearly valid 
message for the individual and the community. When the addressees failed to discharge 
properly the duties of their freedom, they lost this freedom, and the Prophet was 
appointed as their guardian until they came of age. However, once they embraced the 
new religion and observed the sanctity of life and property, and the social claims of their 
kith and kin, as they had been instructed, the sword was suspended, and abuses of 
freedom were penalized according to new laws. Hence the development of Islamic 
Shari'a law, and the establishment of a new type of government. In justifying the use of 
the sword, we may describe it as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife. When used 
with sufficient wisdom, mercy, and knowledge, it uplifted the individual and purified 

Page 135: "Suffering death by the sword in this life is really an aspect of suffering hell 
in the next life, since both are punishments for disbelief. Whoever adds to his own 
disbelief by inciting others to disbelief or to shun the path of God must be suppressed 
before he takes up arms in the cause of disbelief." 

Page 136: "Islam's original principle is freedom. But the Islamic religion was revealed 
to a society in which slavery was an integral part of the socioeconomic order. It was also 
a society that was shown in practice to be incapable of properly exercising its freedom, 
and therefore its individual members needed guidance; hence the consequent enactment 
of jihad. In Islamic jihad, the Muslims first had to offer to the unbelievers the new 
religion. If they refused to accept it, they had the second option of paying jizyah and 
living under Muslim government, while practicing their own religion and enjoying 
personal security. If they also refused the option of jizyah, the Muslims would fight 
them and if victorious take some of them as slaves, thereby adding to the number of 
those already in slavery." 

"If an individual is invited to become the slave of God but refuses, such refusal is 
symptomatic of ignorance that calls for a period of training. The individual prepares to 
submit voluntarily to the servitude of God by becoming the slave of another person, 
thereby learning obedience and humility, which are becoming of a slave. Reciprocity 
(al-mu'awadah) here rules that if a free person refuses to become the slave of God, he 
may be subjugated and made the slave of a slave of God, in fair and just retribution: 
'And whoso does an atom's weight of evil will also see it.' (99:8)" 

My comment: The above passage is one of the most disturbing quotes from the entire book. Taha 
was from the Sudan, a country where chattel slavery is still being practiced today. If Taha had said 


that slavery once existed in most human societies, I could perhaps have accepted that. But he goes 
further than that. He indicates that slavery can in fact be morally good because it is a "training 
period" for becoming a slave of Allah, as all human beings should be. Let's imagine for a moment 
that Mr. Taha had been a white Christian, not a black Muslim. What if, say, Robert Spencer in his 
next book stated that slavery in the United States was good because it taught the slaves obedience 
and humility. Does anybody believe he would then have been hailed as a great example of a 
moderate and tolerant Christianity? Somehow, I doubt it. But there is apparently nothing "extremist" 
about supporting slavery if you are a Muslim. Extremists are nasty Islamophobes such as Geert 

Page 149: "Being so supreme, Islam has never been achieved by any nation up to the 
present day. The nation of muslimin has not yet come. It is expected to come, however, 
in the future of humanity." 

My comment: Apart from sharia, Taha likes Communism, but he thinks the road to perfect 
Communism goes through sharia. Sharia is the key to global equality, eternal peace and warm apple 
pie. Unless they have banned warm apple pie by then, I don't know whether it's halal or not. It could 
be part of a Zionist plot: 

Page 155-156: "The key here is that no one should be allowed to own anything that 
permits the exploitation of one citizen's labor to increase the income of another. 
Individual ownership, even within such narrow boundaries, should not be ownership of 
property as such, but rather ownership of the benefits derived from property, and all 
property remains in the ownership of God and the community as a whole. As production 
from resources increases, the equity of distribution is perfected, and differences are 
reduced by raising both minimum and maximum incomes. But the gap between 
minimum and maximum incomes is gradually narrowed in order to achieve absolute 
equality. When such absolute equality is achieved through the grace of God, and as a 
result of abundant production, we shall achieve communism or a sharing of the earth's 
wealth by all people. Communism thus differs from socialism in degree, in the sense 
that socialism is a stage in the development towards communism. The Prophet 
experienced ultimate communism" 

Page 156-157: " the Prophet said, 'Justice shall fill the earth in the same way it was 
previously full of injustice.' This is what Marx dreamed of, but failed to find the way to 
achieve. It can only be achieved by al-muslimin who are yet to come, and then the earth 
shall enjoy a degree of fulfillment of the verse: 'The God-fearing are in gardens and 
springs. They will be told: Enter therein, in peace and security. We cleansed what was in 
their breasts of hatred, so they became brothers sitting together, never to feel hardship or 
be removed therefrom.' (15:45-48) This is the degree of communism to be achieved by 
Islam with the coming of the nation of muslimin, whence the earth shall light up with 
the Light of its Lord, and God's Grace is conferred upon its inhabitants, when there shall 
be peace, and love shall triumph." 

All things summed up, I agree with Daniel Pipes: Mahmud Muhammud Taha is indeed an 
interesting case, but for precisely the opposite reason of what Mr. Pipes claims. Taha supports the 
idea of slavery on a moral basis, not just as an historical fact. "Freedom" is identical with sharia and 
being a slave of Allah. Those who don't want to accept Islam or Islamic rule should face armed 
Jihad, and the sword should be used as a "surgical tool" to cut them off from the body of society. 
And this is moderate how, exactly? 

If Taha is the great hope for a moderate Islam, we can conclude that a moderate Islam supports 
slavery, stoning people to death for adultery, whipping those who enjoy a glass of wine or beer and 
massacring those who disagree with the above mentioned policies. Taha openly supported many of 


the most appalling aspects of sharia, yet was still considered so controversial that he was executed 
as an apostate. 

The story of Mahmud Muhammud Taha is the ultimate, definitive and final proof that there is no 
moderate Islam. There never has been and there never will be. It's a myth. We should not base our 
domestic or foreign policies on the existence of a moderate Islam just like we should not base them 
on the existence of other mythical creatures such as the yeti or the tooth fairy. 

It is unpleasant to conclude that Islam cannot be reformed. I don't like it either, and would much 
have preferred a different answer. But I see no practical indications that a tolerant Islam is emerging 
and have great difficulty in envisioning how such an entity could look like. There are several ways 
Islam could conceivably be reformed, yet none of them are very likely to succeed. 

I have reviewed and criticized Irshad Manji's work before. Although she never says so explicitly in 
her book , I get the impression that Manji largely agrees with the mantra that "Islam is whatever 
Muslims make of it." I don't share this view. Why do those who behead Buddhist teachers in 
Thailand, burn churches in Nigeria, persecute Hindus in Pakistan or blow bombs in the London 
subway always "misunderstand" Islamic texts? Why don't they feel this urge to kill people after 
reading about, say, Winnie the Pooh? 

If any text was infinitely elastic, we could replace the Koran with any other book and get the same 
result. That's obviously not the case. If you have a text that repeatedly calls for killing, death and 
mayhem, more people are going to "interpret" this text in aggressive ways. Islam is the most 
aggressive and violent religion on earth in practice because its texts are more aggressive than 
those of any other major religion, and because the example of Muhammad is vastly more 
violent than that of any other religious founder. If you return to the original Islam, which Manji 
claims to seek, you get Jihad, since that's what the original Islam was all about. 

The dozens of explicit Jihad verses in the Koran won't all magically disappear. As long as they 
exist, somebody is bound to take them seriously. And since any "reformed" Islam must ultimately 
be rooted in Islamic texts, this probably means that Islam cannot be reformed. 

The process of change is anyway not our job. Muslims should do that themselves. They are adults 
and should take care of their own problems just like everybody else does. For this reason, I dislike 
Manji's suggestion that infidels should spend money on sponsoring Muslims. 

Muslims will not feel much gratitude if we fund their hospitals or schools. To them, everything 
good that happens is the will of Allah. Infidels are supposed to pay the jizya to Muslims anyway, so 
many of them will see payments from us as a sign of submission. They will thus become more 
arrogant and aggressive by such acts rather than feeling grateful. 

As long as infidels keep bailing them out, Muslims have no incentives to change. They will only 
reform or abandon Islam once they are forced to deal with the backwardness brought by Islamic 
teachings. For this reason, we need a strategy for containment of the Islamic world. It's the very 
minimum we can live with. If Muslims need money, let them ask their Saudi brothers for it. If the 
Saudis have to finance hospitals in Gaza or Pakistan, this means they have less of it to finance 
terrorism, which is good. I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald on this one. 

It is possible that some schools or branches within Islam are more tolerant than others. Yes, there 
are theological differences between Sunnis and Shi'a Muslims. These can be significant enough for 
Muslims, but for non-Muslims they are usually not important. Shia Islam is not more peaceful than 
Sunni Islam, nor is it more tolerant, with the possible exception of the Ismaili branch, but they are 
far less numerous than the adherents of Twelver Shi' ism. Since the Shi'a constitute a tiny minority 
of the world's Muslims, the Ismailis are a minority of a minority and quite marginal in the greater 
scheme of things. 

My view is that as long as you start out with the texts used by orthodox Muslims - the Koran, the 
hadith and the sira - it is more or less impossible to come up with a peaceful and tolerant version of 


Islam. In principle it might be possible to change things by either adding more religious texts or 
ignoring some of those that already exist. Both options are problematic. 

Since Muhammad was supposed to be final messenger of Allah, the "seal of the prophets," any 
person later claiming to bring new revelations to mankind will invariably be viewed as a fraud and a 
heretic by orthodox Muslims. This is what happened to the Ahmadiyya movement, who are viewed 
as unbelievers by most others Muslims, including many in "moderate" Indonesia. 

Another example is the Baha'i faith, which is indeed more peaceful than mainstream Islam, but their 
view of history, where the Buddha is seen as a messenger alongside Muhammad, differs so radically 
from traditional Islam that it is usually classified as a separate religion. Baha'is are ruthlessly 
persecuted in the Islamic world, particularly in Iran where the movement originated. They are 
viewed as apostate Muslims since they challenge the concept of the finality of Muhammad's 
prophethood. Ironically, their supreme governing institution is situated in Haifa , in the evil, racist 
apartheid state of Israel. So they get persecuted by "tolerant" Muslim, yet are treated with decency 
by the "intolerant" Israelis. 

There are also the "Koran only" Muslims, who, from what I can gather, currently constitute a very 
small group of people. They advocate that Muslims should ignore the hadith and the sira and rely 
solely on the Koran for guidance. In order to achieve this, they will first have to defy mounting 
opposition from other Muslims who will have some rather powerful theological arguments in their 
favor. The Koran itself says repeatedly that you should obey both the Koran and the example of 
Muhammad. But the personal example of Muhammad and his companions, his Sunna, is mainly 
recorded in extra-Koranical material such as the hadith and the sira. If you remove them, you 
remove the main sources of information for how to conduct prayer, pilgrimage etc., which is usually 
not recorded in any great detail in the Koran. 

"Koran only" reformers, and indeed all aspiring reformers, will have to face the possibility of being 
branded as heretics and apostates, a crime which potentially carries the death penalty according to 
traditional sharia law. On top of this, there are more than enough verses in the Koran itself 
advocating Jihad and intolerance for this alternative to remain problematic, too. For these reasons, it 
is unlikely that a "Koran only" version of Islam can ever constitute a viable long-term reform path. 

A researcher from Denmark, Tina Magaard, has spent years analyzing the original texts of different 
religions, from Buddhism to Sikhism, and concludes that the Islamic texts are by far the most 
warlike among the major religions of the world. They encourage terror and fighting to a far larger 
degree than the original texts of other religions. "The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the 
texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious 
beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo 
in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," says Magaard. Moreover, there 
are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. "If it is correct that 
many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or 
rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. 
Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they 
read it as it is," she says. 

It has been suggested that some regional versions of Islam, for instance "Southeast Asian Islam," 
are more peaceful than "Arab Islam." First of all, in this age of globalization and international 
sponsorship of conservative theology by Saudi Arabia and others, regional interpretations are likely 
to diminish, not increase. And second of all, I'm not convinced that Southeast Asian Islam is more 
tolerant than other forms of the religion. 

It is true that Muslims in some parts of Indonesia have perhaps been less strict than Muslims in, say, 
Egypt, but this was because Indonesia was Islamized at a later date and still contained living 
residues of its pre-Islamic culture. In such cases, we are dealing with "less Islam" or "diluted 
Islam," which isn't quite the same as "moderate Islam" even if some observers claim that it is. 


Moreover, numerous churches have been burnt down or destroyed in that country only during the 
last decade, which hardly indicates that Indonesia is a beacon of tolerance. 

In Thailand and the Philippines, where Muslims constitute a minority, non-Muslims have been 
murdered or chased away from certain areas by Islamic groups who wage a constant Jihad against 
the authorities. The city-state of Singapore is surrounded by several hundred million Muslims and 
can only manage to avoid outside attacks by curtailing the freedom of speech of its citizens and 
banning public criticism of Islam. 

Malaysia has been a moderate economic success story because it has had a large and dynamic non- 
Muslim population and only recently became majority Muslim. This corresponds to some extent to 
the early phases of Islamization in the Middle East. The Golden Age of Islam was in reality the 
twilight of the pre-Islamic cultures. The scientific achievements during this period are exaggerated, 
and those that did take place happened overwhelmingly during the early phases of Islamic rule 
when there were still large non-Muslim populations. When these communities declined due to 
Muslim harassment, the Middle East, home to some of the oldest civilizations on earth, slowly 
declined into a backwardness from which it has never recovered. 

Lebanon was a reasonably successful and civilized country while it still had a slim Christian 
majority, but has rapidly declined into Jihad and sharia barbarism in recent decades due to higher 
Muslim birth rates and non-Muslims leaving the country. It is possible that something similar will 
happen to Malaysia, as Muslims become more confident and aggressive. 

Lastly, you can try to constrain Islam and keep it down by brute force. This kind of muscular 
secularism, enforced with methods no Western country would even contemplate supporting at the 
present time, has been tried under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey. Yet 
Turkey has never been a beacon of tolerance, and the very few non-Muslims who remain in the 
country still face harassment. Kemalism has kept Islam at bay but has never really reformed it. Even 
after almost a century, Islam is in the process of making a comeback. There are serious cracks in the 
facade of secularism, and some observers fear an Islamic revolution in the country. 

The Turkish example is not altogether promising. We should remember that Iran, too, was perceived 
as a moderate and modern country until the revolution brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in 
1979. The lesson we can draw from this is that Islam can lie dormant for generations, yet strike 
again with renewed vigour when the opportunity arises. 

The debate about a "reformed" Islam is inappropriately colored by a Western historical perspective, 
with references to the Protestant Reformation in sixteenth century Europe. This indirectly implies 
that there is some form of equivalence between Christianity and Islam. I don't think there is, even 
though I am not a Christian. Christianity with its concept of the Trinity is akin to soft-polytheism 
from an Islamic point of view. The religious texts are clearly different, not to mention the personal 
examples of the founders of the two religions, Jesus and Muhammad. Islam became a major world 
religion through armed conquest and the creation of an empire. Christianity became a major world 
religion by gradually taking over an already established empire, the Roman Empire. 

Christianity's slow growth within a Greco-Roman context made it possible for Christians to 
assimilate Greek philosophy and Roman law to an extent that never happened among Muslims, 
even in the Mediterranean world which had been dominated by the Romans. This had major 
consequences for further scientific and political developments in Europe and in the Middle East. 
Exposure to Greek and other scientific traditions did lead to some advances in the earliest centuries 
of Islamic rule, but Greek natural philosophy was never accepted into the core curriculum of 
Islamic madrasas as it was in European universities. 

When the American Founding Fathers in the eighteenth century discussed how the shape of their 
young Republic should be, they were influenced by, in addition to modern thinkers and the British 
parliamentary system, descriptions of democratic Athens and the Roman Republic, through 
Aristotle's political texts and Cicero's writings. None of these texts were ever available in Arabic or 


Persian translations. They were rejected by Muslims, but preserved, translated, and studied with 
interest by Christians. The artistic legacy of the Greeks was also largely rejected by Muslims. In 
short, Westerners have no shared "Greco-Roman legacy" with Muslims. They cared mainly for one 
part of this great legacy, the scientific-philosophical part, and even that part they failed to 

The theological differences between Christianity and Judaism vs. Islam are huge. As Robert 
Spencer explains in his excellent little book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't , 
in Christianity the central tenet is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 
3:23). While acknowledging that any human being is capable of evil, the Koran says that Muslims 
are "the best of peoples" (3:110) while the unbelievers are the "vilest of creatures" (98:6). In such a 
worldview, it is easy to see evil in others but difficult to locate it in oneself. The Koran also says 
that the followers of Muhammad are "ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" 
(48:29), and that the unbelievers are the "worst of created beings" (98:6). One may exercise the 
Golden Rule in relation to a fellow Muslim, but according to the laws of Islam, the same courtesy is 
not to be extended to unbelievers. 

Yes, you can find violent passages in the Hebrew Bible, such as in the book of Joshua regarding the 
conquest of Jericho, but "throughout history, rather than celebrating such biblical passages, Jews 
and Christians have regarded them as a problem to be solved. While interpretations of these 
passages differ widely among Jews and Christians, from the beginning of rabbinic Judaism and 
Christianity one understanding has remained dominant among virtually all believers: these passages 
are not commands for all generations to follow, and if they have any applicability, it is only in a 
spiritualized, parabolic sense." 

As Spencer says, "the consensus view among Jews and Christians for many centuries is that unless 
you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these 
biblical passages simply do not apply to you. The scriptures record God's commands to the 
Israelites to make war against particular people only. However this may be understood, and 
however jarring it may be to modern sensibilities, it does not amount to any kind of marching orders 
for believers. That's one principal reason why Jews and Christians haven't formed terror groups 
around the world that quote the Bible to justify killing non-combatants." 

The main problem with Islam isn't that it is a stupid religion, as some people say, but that it is a 
violent and aggressive one. I consider Scientology to be an incredibly stupid creed, but I haven't 
heard about many people living in fear that Tom Cruise will cut off their head while quoting poems 
of L. Ron Hubbard and then post a video of the deed on the Internet. 

Yes, religions do evolve. Stoning people to death was once practiced by Jews, but they progressed 
and left this practice behind because they considered it to be cruel, which it is. The problem is that 
there are literally dozens - more than one hundred, depending on how you count - verses calling for 
Jihad in the Koran, and additional ones in the hadith. Any "tolerant" form of Islam would have to 
reject all of these verses, permanently, in addition to the personal example of Muhammad and his 
followers as well as a large body of secondary literature by more than a thousand years of sharia 
scholars. That's a tall order. We should also remember that Jihad is not the end goal of Islam. Sharia 
is. Jihad is a tool used to achieve sharia and the rule of Islamic law extended to all of mankind. 

As I have explained in my earlier essay Do we want an Islamic Reformation? and in the online 
booklet Is Islam Compatible With Democracy? ' , the question of whether Islam is compatible with 
democracy largely hinges upon your definition of "democracy." If this simply means voting, with 
no freedom of speech or safeguards for individual rights or minorities then yes, it can, as a vehicle 
for imposing sharia on society. But such a "pure" democracy isn't necessarily a good system even 
without Islam, as critics from Plato to Thomas Jefferson have convincingly argued. 

Likewise, the question of whether or not Islam can be reformed largely hinges upon your definition 
of "Reformation." I usually say that Islam cannot be reformed, and by "reformed" I thus implicitly 


understand this as meaning something along the lines of "peaceful, non-sharia based with respect 
for individual choice and freedom of speech." In other words: "Reform" is vaguely taken to mean 
less Islam. 

However, Robert Spencer and others have argued that there are similarities between Martin Luther 
and the Christian Reformation in 16th century Europe and the reform movement started by 
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula in the 1 8th century. Wahhab's alliance with 
regional ruler Muhammad bin Saud and his family later led to the creation of Saudi Arabia. There 
was another modern "reform" movement, the so-called Salafism of 19th century thinkers such as 
Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Whereas the former was an internal reform 
movement triggered by calls for removing "corruption" from society, the latter was clearly a 
response to external, Western pressures. 

Although Abduh's ideas were continued in a secular direction by individuals such as Egyptian 
writer Taha Hussein, clearly the most successful strands were those developed into what was later 
termed "Islamic fundamentalism" in the 20th century. Muhammad Abduh's pupil Rashid Rida 
inspired Hassan al-Banna when he formed the Muslim Brotherhood. Rida urged Muslims not to 
imitate infidels, but return to the Golden Age of early Islam, as did Abduh. Rida also recommended 
reestablishing the Caliphate, and applauded when the Wahhabists conquered Mecca and Medina and 
established modern Saudi Arabia. The two reform movements thus partly merged in the 20th 
century, into organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The fact that two initially separate calls for reform, started under different circumstances and for 
different reasons, produced somewhat similar results is worth contemplating. Protestant reformers 
such as Martin Luther and John Calvin also called for returning to the Golden Age of early 
Christianity. Although the Reformation was a turbulent period while it lasted, it did pave the way 
for more tolerance and religious freedom in Christian Europe in the long run. This was, in my view, 
at least partly because Christians could return to the example, as contained in the Gospels, of an 
early age where the founder of their religion and his disciples led a largely peaceful movement 
separate from the state. Muslims, on the other hand, can find a similar example only in the Mecca 
period. As long as the writings from the violent Medina period are still in force, a return to the 
"early, Golden Age" of Islam will mean a return to intolerance and Jihad violence. 

Some Western observers are searching for a "Muslim Martin Luther" who is expected to end the 
resurgent Islamic Jihad. But one could argue that we already have a Muslim Martin Luther: He's 
called Osama bin Laden, deeply inspired by the teachings of Muslim Brotherhood thinker Sayyid 
Qutb. If "reform" is taken to mean a return to the historical period of the religious founder, 
Muhammad, and his followers, it will lead to an inevitable upsurge of Jihadist violence, since that 
was what Muhammad and his followers were all about. 

The question of whether Islam is reformable is an important one. But perhaps an even more crucial 
one is whether an Islamic Reformation would be desirable from a non-Muslim point of view, and 
the likely answer to that is "no." 


Europe's decline - hurrah! we capitulate! 

Wed, 2008-09-17 10:23 

This story is extremely serious. The European Union is now about to do what senior officials have 
already agreed upon years ago in meetings with Muslim nations, as documented by Bat Ye'or in her 
book about Eurabia : To officially recognize sharia law in European countries: 

A quote from the Gates of Vienna blog, 16 September 2008 

Muslims living in EU countries will in future be able to divorce according to sharia law. 
This is the belief of the EU Commission, which recommends that a couple be able to 
choose which country's law they will follow if they divorce — as long as they have 
some kind of connection to the country they choose. Because of Danish opt-out 
provisions, the EU regulation will not have a direct impact on Denmark. But Danish 
People's Party EU spokesman Morten Messerschmidt is still greatly concerned about the 
proposal: "It's a completely lamebrain idea, the possibility that the Commission will use 
inhumane sharia laws in the EU," he says to MetroXpress. 

A quote from Serge Trifkovic at the Chronicles Magazine blog, 16 September 2008 

British papers are reporting that shari'a law has been officially adopted in Britain , with 
shari'a courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases, notably including wife 
beating. Gordon Brown's Labour government "has quietly sanctioned the powers for 
sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those 
involving domestic violence." Particularly alarming is the fact that Islamic rulings are 
now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or 
High Court. [...] 

Contrary to the Christian concept of governmental legitimacy (Romans 13:1), Islam 
condemns as rebellion against Allah's supremacy the submission to any other form of 
law (Kuran, 5:50). Muslims believe that Shari'a should be used as a standard test of 
validity of all positive laws. Christ recognized the realm of human government as 
legitimate when he said, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to 
God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). In Islam there is no such distinction 
between church and state. Shari'a is not at all a "religious law" but a blend of political 
theory and penal law that relies for the punishment of violators on the sword of the 
state. To be legitimate, all political and legal power must rest with those who obey 
Allah's authority and his revealed will sent down through his prophet (Kuran 5:59). 
Shari'a applies to all humankind just as Kuran applies to all creation. Any law that is 
inconsistent with it is null and void, not only to the Muslims, but to all humanity. Jews, 
Christians, and pagans are subject to Shari'a, too, and from Muhammad's standpoint 
they cannot invoke the judgments and moral principles of prior revelations (4:60). 
Resort to any other source of authority is not only unjustified, it is satanic. The non- 
Muslims are to be judged by the laws of Islam in everything, "whether they like it or 
not, whether they come to us or not. "Shari'a stands above reason, conscience, or nature. 
Its lack of any pretense to moral basis is explicit: there is no "spirit of the law" in Islam, 
no discernment of the consequences of deeds. The revelation and tradition must not be 
questioned or any other standard of judgment - least of all any notion of "natural" 
justice inherent to men as such - can be invoked, let alone applied (5:45). 


The self-defeat of the United States 

Friday, April 10,2009 

At the Center for Security Policy , Caroline Glick writes about "Surviving in a Post-American 

Like it or not, the United States of America is no longer the world's policeman. This was the 
message of Barack Obama's presidential journey to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, 
Turkey and Iraq this past week. 

Somewhere between apologizing for American history — both distant and recent; 
genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash 
the US's nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America's missile defense programs and emasculate 
the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles 
and their fellow former Soviet colonies, "Don't worry, be happy," as he leaves them to 
Moscow's tender mercies; humiliating Iraq's leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for 
an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American 
history, President Obama made clear to the world's aggressors that America will not be 
confronting them for the foreseeable future. 

Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like 
nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, 
today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington. 

I remember when the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, author of Understanding Muhammad , compared 
the personality cult surrounding Barack Obama to that of Fascist leaders. This might seem 
exaggerated, but there is definitely a personality cult surrounding Obama which is unprecedented 
and deeply unhealthy . His Marxist economic policies and his bow for the Saudi King are disturbing. 
I never liked Bush very much, but Obama's appeasement of the Islamic world trumps anything seen 
since the days of Dhimmi Carter, and worse is to come. 

Less than eight years after the Jihadist attacks on the USA, a President raised as a Muslim with the 
middle name "Hussein" hails Islam's great contributions to American and Western culture. The 
USA currently looks more like a defeated nation than the world's sole remaining superpower. It's 
the only nation in history where the majority of the population has elected a member of an 
organization known for hating the majority population of that country. 

My conclusion from 2008 still stands: Americans will soon have their hands full with problems of 
their own and will be in no position to assist anybody even if they wanted to. Europeans can and 
should maintain good relations and cooperate with ordinary North American citizens, who live 
under the same Multicultural regime as we do, but we cannot and should not rely on aid from the 
American elites. They are as hostile as the EU elites. _ 


Britain: from parliament to police state 

Monday, June 15, 2009 

I am aware of the fact that some British people speak of Europe as "somewhere else," to which they 
do not belong. In my opinion, Britain is very much a part of European civilization whether they 
want to admit so or not, but I am willing to grant them a special place within the European tradition. 
There is a reason why English became the first global lingua franca. While I focus mainly on the 
history of science in my essays these days, let us have a brief look at some of the political ideas and 
concepts championed by the British in the modern era. 

The famous English legal charter known as the Magna Carta, issued in the year 1215 and written in 
Latin, limited kingly power in England and had major long-term political consequences when 
combined with later events. King John (1166-1216) had signed the Magna Carta unwillingly, and 
the heavy spending and foreign advisers of his son and successor Henry III (1207-1272) upset the 
nobles, who once again acted as a class under the leadership of the nobleman Simon de Montfort 
(1208-1265), Earl of Leicester. In 1258 they took over the government and elected a council of 
nobles which was called parliament or parlement, a French word meaning a "discussion meeting." 

This "parliament" took control of the treasury and forced Henry to get rid of his foreign advisers. 
Henry died in 1272 and his son Edward I (1239-1307) took the throne. He brought together the first 
real parliament. Simon de Montfort's council included only nobles and had been able to make 
statues, written laws, and make political decisions, but the lords were less able to provide the king 
with money. Several kings had made arrangements for taxation before but, as David McDowall 
writes in An Illustrated History of Britain: 

"Edward I was the first to create a 'representative institution' which could provide the money he 
needed. This institution became the House of Commons. Unlike the House of Lords it contained a 
mixture of 'gentry' (knights and other wealthy freemen from the shires) and merchants from the 
towns. These were the two broad classes of people who produced and controlled England's wealth. 
In 1275 Edward I commanded each shire and each town (or borough) to send two representatives to 
his parliament. 

These 'commoners' would have stayed away if they could, to avoid giving Edward money. But few 
dared risk Edward's anger. They became unwilling representatives of their local community. This, 
rather than Magna Carta, was the beginning of the idea that there should be 'no taxation without 
representation', later claimed by the American colonists of the eighteenth century. In other parts of 
Europe, similar 'parliaments' kept all the gentry separate from the commoners. England was special 
because the House of Commons contained a mixture of gentry belonging to the feudal ruling class 
and merchants and freemen who did not. The co-operation of these groups, through the House of 
Commons, became important to Britain's later political and social development." 

Merchants and country gentlemen were anxious to influence the king's policies, as they wanted to 
protect their interests. When France threatened the important wool trade with Flanders they 
supported Edward III (1312-1377) in his war. During Edward Ill's reign Parliament became 
organized in two parts: the Lords and the Commons, which represented the middle class; the really 
poor had no voice of their own in Parliament until the middle of the nineteenth century. Many 
European countries had similar kinds of parliaments in medieval times, but in most cases these 
institutions disappeared when feudalism died out. In England, however, the death of feudalism 


helped strengthen the House of Commons in Parliament. 

Like the Civil War of 1642, the Glorious Revolution, as the political results of the events of 1688 
were called, was completely unplanned. It was more a coup d'etat by the ruling elites than a 
revolution as such, but the fact that Parliament made William king, not by inheritance but by their 
choice, was indeed revolutionary. Parliament was clearly more powerful than the king and would 
remain so in the future. Its power over the monarch was written into the Bill of Rights in 1689. The 
king was from now on unable to raise taxes or keep an army without the agreement of Parliament, 
or to act against any MP for what he said in Parliament. 

England was by the seventeenth century emerging as a great power whose influence increasingly 
stretched far beyond Europe. It was also one of the most intellectually creative regions in the world. 
After Isaac Newton had published his Principia in 1687, probably the single most influential text in 
the history of science, the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), a friend of Newton, in 
1690 published his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, proclaiming the doctrine 
eventually known as the tabula rasa, where humans come into the world as blank slates. This was 
perfect for a world in which reason ruled and everything was possible. Human nature itself could be 
improved by applying reason, and history could take the direction of eternal progress. Locke 
published his Second Treatise of Government, stating that government is the servant of men, not the 
other way around, and that men possess natural rights, expanding on Thomas Hobbes' concept of 
the social contract. 

In the early 1700s, England's combination of economic prosperity, social stability and civil liberties 
had no equivalent anywhere in Continental Europe, at least not among the larger states; smaller 
states such as Switzerland is a different matter. The French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) lived 
in England for several years in the 1720s and knew the English language well. He preferred British 
constitutional monarchy to French absolute monarchy. Voltaire praised England's virtues in Letters 
on the English from 1734 when he returned to Paris. This caused great excitement among French 
intellectuals for the ideas of Newton and Locke and the plays of Shakespeare, but their own 
philosophies went in a different direction. 

That an important European city such as Paris was the home of a major intellectual movement is not 
too strange. It is more surprising that the smaller city of Edinburgh was so as well during the second 
half of the eighteenth century. What came to be known as the Scottish Enlightenment, whose effects 
were felt far beyond Scotland or Britain, produced a series of prominent intellectuals and scholars, 
including the pioneering modern geologist James Hutton (1726-1797), the philosopher David Hume 
(1711-1776), the brilliant, but famously eccentric economist Adam Smith (1723-1790) and the 
historian Adam Ferguson (1723-181 6). 

Adam Smith from the University of Glasgow in 1776 - at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, 
although he did not realize this at the time - published his Wealth of Nations, widely considered the 
first modern work of economics. Smith stressed meritocracy and introduced the principle of 
competitive advantage and the metaphor of the Invisible Hand. Above all he championed the idea 
that trade is not a zero-sum game but a win-win situation; he challenged the ancient assumption that 
wealth is a pie of fixed size over which everybody has to fight to get their share by showing that the 
size of the pie itself can grow through trade. 

Scotland at this time had a good education system and very high literacy rates, as did the emerging 
Scandinavian nations. The American polymath Benjamin Franklin, who visited Edinburgh in 1759, 
remembered his stay as "the densest happiness" he had ever experienced. By 1762 Voltaire was 


writing, with a touch of malice, that "today it is from Scotland that we get rules of taste in all the 
arts, from epic poetry to gardening." In England and the Netherlands, where political power was 
already in the hands of the merchant middle class, intellectual activity was directed toward 
analyzing the practical significance of this change. In contrast, according to scholar Bruce G. 
Trigger, "The continuing political weakness of the French middle class in the face of Bourbon 
autocracy stimulated French intellectuals to use the idea of progress to reify change as a basis for 
challenging the legitimacy of an absolute monarch, who claimed to rule by divine will and protected 
the feudal economic privileges enjoyed by a politically moribund nobility. By proclaiming change 
to be both desirable and inevitable, Enlightenment philosophers called into question the legitimacy 
of the existing political and religious order. Beginning as an intellectual expression of discontent, 
the French Enlightenment gradually developed into a movement with revolutionary potential.... The 
Scottish interest in Enlightenment philosophy reflected the close cultural ties between Scotland and 
France but also was stimulated by the unprecedented power and prosperity acquired to the Scottish 
urban middle class as a result of Scotland's union with England in 1707. Southern Scotland was 
experiencing rapid development but the highland areas to the north remained politically, 
economically, and culturally underdeveloped. This contrast aroused the interest of Scottish 
intellectuals in questions relating to the origin, development, and modernization of institutions." 
Scottish intellectuals made very important contributions to science and to our understanding of the 
modern world, but it was the more revolutionary version of Enlightenment philosophy which 
developed in France that would become popular among the middle classes seeking more political 
power for themselves in Europe and in North America. 

The sad part when writing this is that while Britain was once admired for its political system and 
was rightfully hailed as a beacon of liberty, today Britain is one of the most politically repressive 
countries in the Western world, which is saying a lot given how bad Politically Correct censorship is 
in the entire Western world these days. Britain today is a Multicultural police state where sharia, 
Islamic law, is quite literally treated as the law of the land. I suppose there is a strange sort of 
symmetry in this: Britain was one of the first countries in the West to embrace political liberty and 
is now among the first to leave political liberty behind. 


Race, immigration and rape in Sweden 

Sunday, September 20, 2009 

According to a recent report, six percent of Swedish girls are raped every year, and that's just the 
official numbers. Reality is probably even worse. The hostile Wikipedia entry on "Fjordman" 
previously claimed that my essays about the Swedish rape epidemic are false because the massive 
increase in rapes was caused by "a widening of the legal definition of rape." I bet it was. 

In this situation, the number one preoccupation of Swedish media is demonizing Israel , and the 
number two preoccupation is demonizing native Swedish critics of mass immigration and barring 
them from access to the mass media. 

Sweden tops European rape league : 

Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe — twice as many as 
"runner up" the UK, a new study shows. Researchers behind the EU study, which will 
be presented on Tuesday, conclude that rape appears to be a more common occurrence 
in Sweden than in continental European countries. In Sweden, 46 incidents of rape are 
reported per 100,000 residents. This figure is double as many as in the UK which 
reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. 
The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern 

As I have pointed out in my book Defeating Eurabia , where I devote an entire chapter to explaining 
the appalling situation in Sweden, Ethnologist Maria Backman, in her study "Whiteness and 
gender," has followed a group of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm, where 
natives have been turned into a minority of the inhabitants due to immigration. The subjects "may 
encounter prejudices such as the idea that Swedish girls act and dress in a sexually provocative way 
or that blonde girls are easy." Backman relates that several of the Swedish girls she interviewed 
stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid sexual harassment. They experienced that being blonde 
involves old men staring at you, cars honking their horns and boys calling you "whore." 

Swedish girls suffer widespread harassment: report 

Every third young Swede has been subjected to repeated harassment, threats or violence 
over the past year. Six percent of young girls have been raped, a new report from 
Swedish researchers shows. 


Fjordman asks: why Obama but not Osama? 

Friday, October 09, 2009 

I must admit that the news that US President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was 
surprising, but only mildly so given what I know about the people who are members of the Nobel 
Committee in Oslo. 

By Norwegian standards, Hillary Clinton is a conservative politician. That was not a joke, it was a 
factual statement. The New York Times would be one the most right-wing newspapers in Norway. 
This is the only way I can explain local politics to outsiders. However, even many Norwegians 
apparently find it puzzling that Barack Hussein Obama got the Peace Prize. 

I have spent much of the day trying to figure out why he got it, and I finally came up with this 

Because he has done so much to advance the cause of Islam. 

Two years ago I suggested that Ayaan Hirsi Ali or other ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina or 
Wafa Sultan should be awarded the Peace Prize. My thinking was that they should get it because 
Islamic Jihad now constitutes the greatest threat to world peace, and former Muslims who defy the 
traditional death penalty for leaving Islam are standing up to this. 

I am, of course, perfectly aware of the fact that they will probably never receive it, but even if 
somebody nominated them that would constitute a small victory. The Nobel Committee has now 
taken the exact opposite approach and concluded that to promote Islam is to promote peace. We all 
know that Islam is peace, and since Obama is advancing the cause of Islam worldwide he's 
spreading peace. 

During his Cairo speech as US President in June 2009, Obama announced that "I consider it part of 
my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam 
wherever they appear." In effect, he pledged himself to spreading Islam and censorship of those 
who criticize Islam around the world. Whatever else he might be, Obama is a man of his word. The 
Obama Administration has now co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations 
along with Islamic countries. 

If the Norwegian Nobel Committee has indeed decided that to promote Islam is to promote peace, I 
think they have unfairly bypassed another name: Osama bin Laden. Obama has been very eager 
during his first months as US President to promote Islam, but in all fairness, bin Laden has devoted 
his entire life to the same cause. Due to his many years of devotion to the spread of Islamic peace 
and justice, you could consequently argue that Osama deserves the Peace Prize more than Obama. 

I suspect that the only reason why Osama bin Laden hasn't received the Nobel Peace Prize yet is 
because as far as I know he hasn't been nominated. I hope somebody can correct this mistake as 
soon as possible so that he can receive his well-deserved Prize in 2010. 


IQ and warfare 

Sunday, November 01, 2009 

In my essay Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World? I wrote a review of the interesting 2007 
book Understanding Human History by the American astrophysicist Michael H. Hart. Throughout 
history, most of the instances where people from one region have conquered another have involved 
"northerners" invading lands to the south. China has never been conquered by the populous nations 
south of it but has been repeatedly attacked from the north. On two occasions — the Mongols and 
the Manchus — invaders conquered all of China. Within China, it was the northerners who created 
a unified country by conquering southern China. India, despite its large population, has never 
invaded the lands north of it, but has itself been repeatedly invaded from the northwest. The three 
Indian dynasties which came closest to ruling the entire subcontinent (the Mauryas, the Guptas and 
the Mughals) all originated in the north. According to Hart, "The obvious — and, I believe, the 
correct — explanation for the military superiority of the northerly peoples is the higher average 
intelligence of those peoples compared with the inhabitants of more tropical regions." 

Michael H. Hart admits that the Muslim conquests constitute a major counter-example to this 
general rule. It is true that Muslims never managed to establish lasting control over Europe, as they 
did in North Africa and the Middle East, but the impact of Islamic Jihad over many centuries on the 
nations of southern Europe was far from marginal. Regarding the Mongols, as soon as they left the 
colder regions of the mountains they failed to adapt their successful strategies based on horses to the 
sea and never conquered most of India and Southeast Asia. Their conquest of Iran and Iraq but 
defeat by the Egyptian Mamluks in 1260 cannot be attributed mainly to differences in IQ. 

Some would say that the mass immigration of many low-IQ peoples to white majority Western 
nations at the turn of the twenty-first century is another major counter-example, but this 
development constitutes such an anomaly in world history that it must be treated as a special case. 
Western nations have not been military defeated. These immigrants/colonists would not have been 
able to settle in these countries if they couldn't exploit the deranged altruism and political- 
ideological flaws of the modern West, and they have always received substantial aid from high-IQ 
groups within the West itself, among them white Marxists. 

What impact does IQ have on warfare? Consider the attack against the United States' naval base at 
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941 by the Japanese armed forces. From a strictly military 
point of view this was an extremely successful and devastating attack. In the long run, however, it 
brought the USA into the Second World War on the winning side so from that perspective perhaps it 
was a mistake. Let us put aside the moral and historical issues here and ask the following question: 

Could a low-IQ people such as, say, Zulus have carried out an attack similar to Pearl Harbor? The 
answer to this is almost certainly no, for a number of reasons. First of all the attack required the 
development and effective use of high-tech equipment such as aircraft carriers and airplanes with an 
impressive range for their time. And second of all the discipline and intelligence needed to not only 
plan but successfully carry out such a bold surprise attack are the hallmarks of a high-IQ people. 
The Japanese eventually lost the war because they attacked another high-IQ people, white 
Americans, who were more numerous and possessed a larger industrial base. Size and demographic 
numbers matter, also in war. 

High intelligence measured in IQ is an advantage in all walks of life, from mathematics to finance. 
In warfare it is a great advantage for strategic thinking and for understanding your enemy and his 


society. Above all, high IQ is important for creating technology and weapons used to conduct 
warfare as well as an underlying economic base to support the war efforts. Nevertheless, I would 
argue that the correlation between IQ and success in warfare is less strong than it is in mathematical 
astronomy. Even in mathematics there is not an automatic correlation between the two; Europeans 
historically outperformed East Asians in mathematics by a wide margin, despite the fact that the 
latter have at least as high average IQ as the former. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that in 
mathematics and mathematical astronomy, IQ is the single most important factor to explain 
different levels of performance. 

When it comes to warfare, IQ is still a very important factor but perhaps less decisively so than in 
mathematics. Warfare is about intelligence in every sense of the word, but also about sheer 
aggression, total dedication to your cause and complete willingness to crush your enemy. Although I 
personally do not like Islam as a creed at all I must admit that in certain situations Muslims may 
have an advantage in the latter categories. Islam is a very simple, even primitive, creed, but as such 
it can ironically carry certain advantages. From a strictly evolutionary point of view, if Islam didn't 
enjoy any advantages it wouldn't have become as large as it has. Muslims are absolutely convinced 
about the justness of their cause and the fact that they literally have a God-given right to conquer 
other peoples. They have no moral qualms whatsoever about doing so. In contrast, the modern West 
is full of self-doubt. 

As blog reader Terry Morris puts it , "it has been truthfully remarked before that some people tend to 
'outthink' themselves. Which I'm not sure entirely applies here, or can be said to be the source of 
the current problem with Muslim empowerment in Europe. But it actually could be the case that the 
comparatively 'simple' Arabs have a distinctive advantage over their white European counterparts 
which derives from their comparative simplicity. It's something worth thinking about. When a 
person is able to see his way clear to a goal or a purpose, unimpeded by a lot of intellectual mind- 
junk, he definitely has an advantage over someone who tends to over analyze the chain of causes 

and effects related to a given problem I tend to think that there's one essential key to eventual 

European victory over the Muslims — they have to believe and know that they're right, that their 
cause it just and right; that their victory over the Muslims is just and right. Otherwise I see no 
possibility of their winning." 

You could successfully argue that Islam historically encountered an IQ limit to its expansion. The 
high-IQ peoples of northeastern and northwestern Eurasia never came under lasting Islamic rule, 
whereas Muslims dominated southern Eurasia and parts of Africa. Muslims inflicted real damage on 
Europe, but in the end failed to establish their rule over the European heartland. This could be 
because in the Chinese and Europeans, Middle Eastern Muslims encountered peoples who were too 
smart for them to conquer. 

However, the old rules no longer apply at the turn of the twenty- first century. With intercontinental 
air travel available to the masses and with human rights legislation, both inventions of the West, 
Muslims and others can colonize the West. Entire villages can be transplanted from Morocco or 
Bangladesh to the Netherlands or Britain within a few years. Muslims have so far been more 
successful at infiltrating democratic Europe peacefully than they ever were at conquering pre- 
democratic Europe through warfare. Does that mean that the democratic system itself will break 
down and be abandoned before Europeans fight back? It is difficult to predict future events because 
what is happening now has no historical precedent. The rulebook consequently goes out the 

As American writer Daniel Pipes states , "The decisive events that will resolve this question have yet 
to take place, so one cannot yet make the call. Decision-time is fast approaching, however. Within 
the next decade or so, today's flux will end, the Europe-Islam equation will harden, and the 


continent's future course should become apparent. Correctly anticipating that course is the more 
difficult for being historically unprecedented. No large territory has ever shifted from one 
civilization to another by virtue of a collapsed population, faith, and identity; nor has a people risen 
on so grand a scale to reclaim its patrimony. The novelty and magnitude of Europe's predicament 
make it difficult to understand, tempting to overlook, and nearly impossible to predict. Europe 
marches us all into terra incognita." 


Who won the cold war? 

Monday, November 02, 2009 

It's now almost twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. But did it 
really end, and did we win it ? Look at the situation in Europe today, where many of the former 
Communist countries in the eastern half of Europe are freer and safer than many of those in the 
western half of Europe. Instead of an Iron Curtain we now have an Iron Veil of Multiculturalism, 
and Western Europe is on the wrong side of it this time around. Did we trade the USSR for the 
EUSSR ? If we really "beat" Marxism, how come Marxists and Leftists of all stripes virtually 
control Western media and academia a generation later, and why does the USA have a Marxist- 
inspired President Obama ? 

The Cold War Never Ended 
by Michael C. Moynihan 

Meyer is exercised by the onerous Cold War "myths" that we all cling to, yet he never 
engages or identifies those who supposedly propagate them. He rightly denounces the 
America-centric view of Cold War history but barely mentions the pivotal role played 
by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in reunification. France's Francois Mitterand, 
Great Britain's Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II are similarly absent from the narrative. 
(As Polish dissident writer Adam Michnik later observed, "It will be a long time before 
anyone fully comprehends the ramifications of [the Pope's] nine-day visit" to occupied 
Poland in 1979.) 

In place of the old myths, Meyer erects new ones: "For all the problems they faced. . . 
most East Germans had no desire to leave their country," he insists, "contrary to the 
impression fostered in the West. Many if not most were perfectly comfortable with the 
socialist system that guaranteed them work, low-cost housing and free lifelong health 
care and schooling." There is no source for this fantastical claim. That a certain measure 
of nostalgia for the East German dictatorship exists from a distance of 20 years is 
undeniable, but an opinion poll taken in 1990 showed that 91 percent of East Germans 
favored unification and, by definition, the dissolution of the "worker's state." 

Reagan, of course, had his flaws, as voluminously documented by scholars, enemies, 
and sympathizers alike. But Gorbachev, Time's "Man of the Decade" for the 1980s 
(unlike Reagan) and a Nobel Peace Prize winner (unlike Reagan), often escapes similar 
scrutiny. Meyer is more interested in score settling, pointing out that many hard-liners in 
the Reagan and Bush administrations, several of whom later joined George W. Bush's 
administration, misjudged Gorbachev's seriousness. 

Gorbachev's economic reforms were vague and ad hoc, and they wound up being 
tremendous failures. His chief foreign policy aide, Anatoly Chernyaev, grumbled during 
glasnost that Gorbachev "has no concept of where we are going. His declaration about 
socialist values, the ideals of October, as he begins to tick them off, sound like irony to 
the cognoscenti. Behind them — emptiness." As historian Robert Service has observed, 
Gorbachev intended glasnost as "a renaissance of Leninist ideals," while his books "still 
equivocated on Stalin." He avoided repeats of 1956 and 1968, when the Soviet military 


ruthlessly cracked down on its restive satellites, but did send troops to murder residents 
of Vilnius, Tblisi, and Baku. 

Both Mann and Meyer are correct that without Gorbachev, the end of the Cold War 
wouldn't have arrived so quickly And Vaclav Havel is surely right when he argues that 
Gorbachev's "historical achievement is enormous: communism would have collapsed 
without him anyway, but it might have happened 10 years later, and in God knows how 
wild and bloody a fashion." But Mann's case is convincing that the man of the decade, 
the great peace laureate, destroyed the Soviet Union "unintentionally," not as an 
expression of any democratic desires. 

It is difficult to accept heroic portrayals of those who were complicit in the mass 
enslavement and murder of their unwilling subjects. The Soviet Union's leaders, out of 
at least partial desperation, opened the door to democracy a crack, and their restless 
captives barged right through. On the other side they found VHS players, compact discs, 
supermarkets overflowing with fresh produce, press freedom, the hurly-burly of 
markets, multiparty democracy — and an army of fallible historians, journalists, 
politicians, and pundits, all desperate to prove that they had been right all along. 


The coming crash 

Sunday, November 22, 2009 

I am preparing a text which I will publish at The Brussels Journal in the not-too-distant future, but I 
will begin the discussion here first. When I read the various comments at Lawrence Auster's place 
and Dennis Mangan's blog, Takuan Seiyo's recent piece at TBJ and the latest post by El Ingles at 
Gates of Vienna, I get the feeling that tensions are building up and that something big is going to 
happen within the coming generation, probably within the next five to ten years. Since I have been 
writing about geology lately I will use an analogy from plate tectonics: The tectonic plates of the 
Western world are now about to make a big move. 

Tensions have been building slowly beneath the surface for many years and sooner or later these 
forces will be released in the form of a series of devastating earthquakes, followed by some 
secondary political and economic tsunamis. Some of the structures that currently appear to be rock 
solid will collapse like a house of cards during this period and the political landscape will change 
considerably. What appears unthinkable today will appear natural or inevitable twenty years from 
now. This is the discontinuity that El Ingles talks about. I would rank Britain as the Western 
European country most likely to first get a civil war caused by mass immigration and 
Multiculturalism. Denmark follows as number two and possibly Holland as number three. Both 
Belgium and Sweden are pretty bad, but too repressive to be first in line. Germany is too weighed 
down by her history to be first. This leaves France as a potential dark horse. I admit I don't 
understand how the French think. On the surface, France looks screwed. On the other hand, France 
is historically speaking a revolutionary nation, for better or worse. Maybe there is some mini- 
Charles Martel in hiding somewhere. If so, he better show up soon. 

I think we need to be realistic and realize that the current political-ideological order is completely 
broken and beyond repair. Instead of wasting time and energy on attempting to fix what cannot be 
fixed we need to prepare as best as we can for the coming crash and hopefully regroup to create 
something new and stronger afterward. There will be a pan- Western and perhaps international 
economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future. I fear that this is too late to avoid by now. 
The people who support the ruling paradigm are too powerful and the paradigm contains so many 
flaws that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. We should focus on surviving this crash and on 
developing a new paradigm to replace the failed one. 

We need to learn from our enemies, both internal and external. The one thing I reluctantly admire 
about Marxists and Leftists of all stripes is above all their ability to organize and focus on long-term 
goals. Unfortunately, their goals are usually destructive, but we can and must learn from their 
organizational skills so that we can beat them at their own game. They must be squashed, otherwise 
we cannot deal rationally and adequately with our external enemies. 

We must get rid of Feminism, which is destructive and merely an extension of Marxism, anyway. 
We must prepare as best as we can for a collapse of the US dollar and perhaps the Euro. We must 
document what is being done to us by treasonous elites for future references, for instance by making 
a video dedicated to anti-white verbal and physical violence around the world. We must take steps 
to ensure our physical safety and regain pride in our heritage. 

We need to get rid of the EU, ridicule the UN and starve it for funds. I'm not sure whether we need 
NATO, either, although I'm willing to debate that part. The American defense umbrella may no 
longer be sustainable when the US economy fails. Besides, it is laughable to think that the US 


military would "protect" native Europeans from Muslims. It is the official policy of both major US 
parties to support — no accelerate — the continued destruction of Europe, just like it is their policy 
to continue the destruction of their own country Just because the EU is awful, which it is, doesn't 
necessarily mean that the USA is good. The American political elites are champions of dangerous 
and dysfunctional ideologies at home and abroad. The current US President Obama has publicly 
pledged himself to combat opposition to Islam rather than Islam itself, which means that it is 
official US policy to spread Islamic law. Uncle Sam is Uncle Sharia, as we have recently seen 
demonstrated. If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire then the USA is the Diversity Empire, 
committed to spreading Multiculturalism and genetic Communism around the world, especially to 
white majority countries. 

US General Wesley Clark during the bombing against Serbia in 1999 said more or less explicitly 
that the war was undertaken to impose "diversity." I don't hate Americans is general but their elites 
are just as hostile as the EU elites, and they have bigger guns. When I see how Nidal Hasan was 
treated by the US military I don't think I want these people involved in my affairs. They would 
probably say that native Euros are Nazis who oppress the poor Muslims. Then they would bomb us 
and say it is for our own good, just like they did to the Serbs. The United States will not survive this 
century. It will be split into several countries according to ethnic, racial and perhaps even 
ideological lines. There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own 
kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this 
double standard. People of European origins are among the least ethnocentric people on the planet 
and are currently being penalized heavily for this. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living 
things down to plants and bacteria. It's about time that whites reclaim the same right without 
apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate. The 
lies we are being served are virtually identical in every Western country. I've had some discussions 
about this with my friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is about a structural failure in our political 
system. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of 
breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy. Anti- white ideologies are 
now taught in every Western university and were arguably elevated to national ideology in the USA 
with the election of Obama. I suspect this is because whites have historically had an unusually high 
emphasis on self-rule, rule by consent and power sharing, not to mention the fact that we ask too 
many questions. This is annoying to those who desire an authoritarian system with themselves on 
top. We need to be broken, culturally and demographically. This is why the elites desire mass 
immigration. The leading "Multicultural theorist" in my country, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen 
of the University of Oslo, said frankly that the most important thing to do now is "deconstructing 
the majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again." He is essentially calling 
for dismantling his own people and he knows that he can do so with total impunity. 

Also, I suspect that the main reason why many others hate us is that European civilization has been 
so incomparably much more influential and accomplished than any other civilization on this planet 
that our existence makes them feel inferior. The only way they can stop feeling inferior is by 
eradicating us. A terribly politically incorrect thing to say, but that's my view. 


Surviving the coming crash 

Tuesday, December 01, 2009 

As I have stated my essay The Coming Crash , I think we need to realize that the current ideological 
order is broken and beyond repair. There will probably some sort of pan- Western economic and 
social collapse in the not-too-distant future; I fear this is too late to avoid by now. The people who 
support the ruling paradigm are too powerful, and the paradigm itself contains so many flaws, that it 
cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. Instead of wasting time and energy on attempting to fix what 
cannot be fixed we need to prepare as best as we can for the coming crash and hopefully regroup to 
create a stronger and healthier culture afterward. 

We are currently in the middle of the White Guilt Gold Rush. If you are a white Westerner you may 
not have fully realized this, but I can assure you that the rest of the world knows this. The trick is to 
keep the white man on the defensive and vaguely guilty at all times so that he can be squeezed for 
money. The climate quotas for carbon dioxide constitute a thinly disguised form of global Socialism 
through the UN-sponsored redistribution of wealth. 

The recent scientific scandal about fake data regarding man-made global warming is just the tip of 
the iceberg. There are currently so many different layers of lies from "gender equality" via IQ 
differences to climate that it is virtually impossible to deal with all of them. Our entire society has 
essentially become one big lie. Our media, our schools and our political leaders repeat these lies 
every single day; those daring to question them are immediately ostracized. 

Since the EU has forced through the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty and in essence abolished not 
just popular influence on EU policies but dissolved dozens of nation states, the self-appointed 
European elites have in effect banned any legal opposition to their rule. It is no longer possible to 
formally oppose their policies within the regular political channels. Given that the same elites 
appear hell-bent on running the entire continent into the ground, this leaves the options of rebellion 
or a structural collapse. I don't think we will see open rebellion just yet, although this could change 
if the economy deteriorates further. This means that the most likely way out now is a structural 
collapse, and I fear that's exactly what we are going to get. 

Didn't the Obama Administration with international aid "save" the world from a looming financial 
crisis? Of course they didn't. The main problem for the USA is that the national debt keeps rising 
while the national IQ keeps falling. This hasn't changed one bit in the past year. On the contrary, it 
is worse now than it was before, and it looks like it will be worse still next year and the year after 
that. As long as this situation remains unchanged, my bet is that the price of gold will continue to 
rise as people seek safe harbor from the collapsing US dollar. 

Although other industrialized countries have heavy debt loads, too, the case of the United States is 
especially serious because of its sheer size. Had the USA been a private person he would probably 
have been declared bankrupt a long time ago. But the United States is not a private person; it is still 
the world's largest economy and has the world's largest armed forces. As writer Takuan Seiyo states 
in the latest installment of his brilliant From Meccania to Atlantis series: "The strongest, most 
admired country in the world until just a few years ago is now a cautionary tale of the wages of sin 
and stupidity told to Chinese schoolchildren." 


I don't know what the future holds for the USA. It could split apart along ethic and ideological lines 
in a Second American Civil War, or it could become just another Latin American country along with 
Canada, in which case all of America will be Latin America. 

I could add that I don't hate Latin America. If we do end up with a series of nasty Multicultural civil 
wars in Western Europe it is possible that some areas of South America could be better places to 
live than Birmingham or Marseilles. However, Latin America never has been and probably never 
will be a major force in world politics. If the United States declines this will shift global power back 
to Eurasia, where it has been throughout most of human history. China will in all likelihood be a 
leading player and perhaps the dominant one. 

I am increasingly convinced that some of the developments we are witnessing are deliberate and 
that there is a long-term goal among certain powerful groups of breaking down Western nations to 
facilitate the creation of a global oligarchy. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in 
every single Western country. I've had discussions about this with my Chinese friend Ohmyrus who 
thinks this is caused by a structural flaw in our democratic system. I don't necessarily disagree with 
that, but there are other forces at work here as well. 

According to Herman Van Rompuy, the newly-installed President of the European Union, the 
climate conference in Copenhagen is a step towards the " global management " of our planet. As 
author Bat Ye 'or has demonstrated and as I have confirmed in my own book Defeating Eurabia , the 
EU is actively collaborating with Islamic countries to rewrite the textbooks in European countries to 
make them more "Islam-friendly" 

It is well-documented that there are detailed long-term plans to expand the EU to include Muslim 
North Africa and the Middle East. This has been publicly confirmed by several high-ranking 
officials, including the British Foreign Minister in 2007 . One newspaper leaked EU plans to import 
50 million (!) more Africans to Europe in the coming decades, although urban communities across 
Western Europe are already in the process of breaking down due to mass immigration. A high- 
ranking official from Tony Blair's Labour Government in Britain openly confirmed that they 
promoted mass immigration to import voters and alter the ethnic composition of the country. 
Similar policies are undoubtedly being promoted in countries from Germany to Australia. 

In June 2009, only a few years after a group of Arabs killed thousands of Americans in a Jihadist 
attack, former US President Bill Clinton told an Arab American audience that soon the USA will no 
longer have a majority of people with a European heritage. He believed that "this is a very positive 
thing." It wasn't that first time that Mr. Clinton expressed such views. 

Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the then Social Democratic Swedish government, during a 
radio debate stated that "We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when 
we become a minority, they will be so towards us." He took it for granted that the natives will 
become a minority in their own country and that they have no right to oppose this. 

I could add that Sweden has no colonial history. Neither have Finland or Norway, which gained 
their independence as late as the twentieth century, yet both countries are still force-fed mass 
immigration of alien peoples. The "colonial guilt" argument used against the natives in Britain, 
France and other Western European countries is bogus. The real issue is that we white Westerners 
should not have any countries to call our own. Our countries should be giant Multicultural theme 
parks for everybody else, financed by brainwashed white taxpayers. 

Arguably the leading academic Multiculturalist in my country, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen 
of the University in Oslo, who has received millions in government funding for his projects, in an 


interview stated frankly that "The most important blank spot exists now in deconstructing the 
majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again." This is the ultimate goal of 
Western Multiculturalists. Make no mistake about it. Needless to say, this agenda is only pushed in 
white majority Western countries. All other countries are allowed to retain their demographic 
profile; only the West is required to commit suicide. 

Law and order is rapidly breaking down in major cities across Western Europe, and indeed the 
Western world, as immigrant gangs rule the streets. The law is only upheld against the "racist" 
white majority population to ensure that they keep on paying ridiculously high taxes to authorities 
that do nothing but lie to them, insult them and aid their national destruction. 

As the eminent English writer El Ingles says, "The nature and severity of the problems we face are 
now sufficiently clear for European patriots to start asking themselves what actions they and others 
like them will eventually be called upon to take when the failure of the state reaches a critical point, 
and what sort of battlefield they will be arrayed upon at that moment." 

One thing we absolutely need to do is to break the stranglehold that Marxist and Leftist groups have 
successfully established over the media and the education system in Western countries. These 
people need to be squashed. Maybe some readers think this sounds too harsh, but I firmly believe 
that we cannot deal effectively with our external enemies as long as our internal enemies control the 
information flow. We must reject those who promote a Globalist world, including multinational 
corporations that desire unlimited access to cheap labor. 

Imagine if you have a person jumping off a plane without a parachute because he is convinced that 
he has "moved beyond gravity." If works for a little while, until it suddenly doesn't. That sounds 
too crazy to be true until you realize that this is what the entire Western world is doing right now 
when we pretend that we have "moved beyond ethnic divisions ." It is hardwired into the human 
brain to look after your people and "tribe" first. The only ones who are not currently doing this are 
whites. If, or rather when, white Westerners start behaving like everybody else our countries will 
quickly become Balkanized nightmares of competing tribes. 

We must switch from a "save the world" to a "save ourselves" mode. In the early twentieth century, 
people of European origins made up one third of the global population, maybe as much as 40%. In 
the not-too-distant future this figure will be down to less than 10% and falling. This sharp reduction 
has not been caused by a plague but by a massive population increase in Third World countries, 
ironically facilitated by the global technological civilization created by European advances. We 
have given alien peoples the technological ability to multiply, move to our countries and colonize 
us. This cannot be allowed to continue. 

We must start looking after our own interests just like everybody else. Self-preservation is a natural 
instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. The first thing we must do is to bury the 
entire notion of "racism," which is anti-scientific nonsense exclusively designed to intimidate 
whites. It is perfectly conceivable, indeed highly likely, that there is a major genetic component to 
culture. This would imply that the preservation of the European cultural heritage can only be 
accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage. 

It is becoming more or less mandatory for teachers in many Western countries to disparage 
European peoples, their culture and their heritage. We don't need to have special reeducation camps 
because the media and the education system ensure that our society is virtually one large 
reeducation camp. Unfortunately, that's not much of an exaggeration . In Hollywood films such as 
the disaster movie 2012, which I had the misfortune of seeing, all whites are portrayed either as evil 
and selfish or as losers whereas the non-white characters are portrayed as selfless and heroic. In 


reality, whites are today among the most selfless and least ethnocentric groups on the planet, and we 
are being punished heavily for this trait. 

The truth is that whites create superior societies. Not only are others not capable of creating what 
we do, most of them are not even capable of maintaining it. The one major exception would be 
Northeast Asians, the only other large group of people on this planet apart from Europeans capable 
of sustaining a technologically sophisticated society. If anybody replaces us as the world's leading 
civilization it will be them, for the simple reason that they are the only ones who possess a genetic 
intelligence to match ours, and they are not suicidal. 

Because we create attractive societies other peoples want to move to our countries, but in displacing 
us they will gradually destroy what made our countries desirable places to live in the first place. 
They both hate and secretly envy us, and our children suffer needlessly from the violence and 
verbal abuse caused by this. If whites put up a colony on the planet Mars, I am sure others would 
hitchhike there on our space ships and demand that we let them in. Once there they would not 
exhibit any trace of gratitude. On the contrary, they would constantly whine and complain about 
how evil and racist and oppressive the white man is. 

Muslims would demand respect because we owe all our scientific and technological advances to 
medieval Muslim scholars and because the Martian colony is the 63rd holiest place in Islam. In case 
you thought the latter sentence was intended as a joke, think again. In 1997 three Arab Muslim 
gentlemen from the Yemen sued NASA for trespassing on Mars, which they claimed that they 
owned because they inherited the planet from their ancestors 3,000 years ago. 

Novelist Virginia Woolf famously wrote that women need "a room of their own." In the twenty-first 
century it is whites who need a room of our own, and if we cannot have that in Europe, which is our 
cradle, then I don't see where else we can have it. The alternative is that we maintain a continuing 
cycle where whites create dynamic societies that are overrun by people incapable of sustaining 
them. This cycle will finally end when the existence of white communities itself ends. The only 
viable long-term solution to this dilemma is physical separation. If you force very different peoples 
to share the same geographic space, conflict is inevitable. This insight was once considered 
common sense. Now it's "hate speech." 

Will such a policy not be denounced as "hate" and "Fascism"? Possibly, but I don't see why we 
should care about that. We, too, have a right to shape our destiny. Besides, we could always use the 
arguments of our critics against them. If whites truly are uniquely evil and oppressive, as some 
people seem to think, is it then not an act of mercy to keep non-whites away from us? That way 
they don't have to become exposed to our racism, our hatred and our Islamophobia, but can retain 
their diverse, authentic and colorful tribal violence undisturbed. 

One change that could conceivably take place is that people of European origins develop a stronger 
identity as "whites" on top of their national identities. I tried to explain to a hostile and now luckily 
discredited American blogger a while ago that the term "white nationalist" is meaningless in a 
European context. Maybe it carries some meaning in North America or Australia where most whites 
are of a mixed heritage, but over here it does not. Englishmen and Germans look fairly similar, but 
that hasn't prevented them from slaughtering each other by the millions. Ditto for the French and 
the Spanish, the Poles and the Russians etc. 

I don't know if there ever will be a "white" identity. Perhaps we are just too different. What I do 
know is that if such an identity ever comes into being it will to a large extent have been created and 
forced upon us by our enemies. I have watched a number of disturbing videos, filmed by the 
attackers, of gangs of blacks or Arabs attacking what appears to be completely random whites. This 


happens from Sweden via Germany, Britain and France to the United States. This escalating wave 
of anti-white violence is one of the least-reported major news stories today as Western mainstream 
media almost uniformly try to cover these things up. 

What strikes my about these attacks is that they are based on skin color; nobody asks the victims 
whether they are Russian Orthodox, Polish Catholics, English atheists, German Lutherans or Dutch 
Calvinists. These distinctions matter a great deal to us — we have fought many bloody wars 
because of them — yet they do not seem to matter to those who hate us. If people feel that they are 
attacked as whites they may start defending themselves as such, too. 

The coming pan- Western crash will at the very least lead to an ideological-political paradigm shift 
and the rise of a new mythology to replace the post- WWII "suicide paradigm" of misunderstood 
anti-Nazism. At worst, the discontinuity will be so long and severe that what emerges on the other 
side will be a completely new civilization, the third generation of European civilization, just like 
what emerged during the Middle Ages was a different civilization from that of Greco-Roman 
Antiquity. The transition between the first and second generations of European civilization took 
centuries. History generally moves faster now than it did back then, but I suspect such a transition 
will nevertheless take several generations. 

How a new civilization would look like I do not know. Medieval Europeans used different elements 
of the Greco-Roman legacy creatively and added new innovations on top of this. Generation Two of 
European civilization contained within itself aspects of Generation One, but also contained 
elements of sharp discontinuity. This will probably be the case next time, too. 

All of this does admittedly sound a bit gloomy, yet I truthfully remain convinced that we have the 
necessary cultural and genetic resources to regroup and regenerate at some point, although it is 
conceivable that whites will in the future come from fewer bloodlines than we do today. 


On the collapsing US dollar 

Sunday, December 20, 2009 

While I am normally not much of a fan of The New York Times, one of their articles in November 
2009 about the ballooning US national debt is worth quoting. The White House estimates that the 
government's tab for servicing the national debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from 
$202 billion in 2009, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically Other forecasters say the 
figure could be much higher. Although other industrialized countries have heavy debt loads, too, the 
United States is a special case because of its sheer size. 

Put simple, had the United States been a private person he would have been declared bankrupt by 
now and put under administration by the bank. But the United States is not a private person; it is 
still the world's largest economy and with huge armed forces. It is worth quoting Takuan Seiyo in 
one of the installments of his brilliant From Meccania to Atlantis series: 

"The strongest, most admired country in the world until just a few years ago is now a cautionary 
tale of the wages of sin and stupidity told to Chinese schoolchildren. A nation that works for a living 
can weather perhaps even such great storms. But the jobs of the American lower class have been 
outsourced to imported Mexicans. The jobs of the American middle class have been exported to 
China and India. The jobs of the American upper-middle class have been taken from the white 
males who held them by merit, and given to resentful identity groups that hold them by the fiat of 
the government's preferred skin colors and favored genitalia. And the jobs of the American upper 
class have been reprogrammed from leadership and service, to ripping off the less clever via 
lawyering, banksterism, and padding one's golden CEO parachute, and then expiation via funding 
and leading socialist NGOs. 

A freefalling dollar cannot help by increasing exports, when you have off-shored your 
manufacturing, and your main industries are predatory lawsuits, selling shoddy American housing 
to Salvadorians with faked mortgages, and marketing financial weapons of mass destruction 
worldwide. And a falling dollar is not a good inducement for the world to keep buying dollar- 
denominated U.S. debt. The cessation of that buying has such dire consequences to the United 
States that Chinese strategists have named them 'the nuclear option.'" 

I have sometimes encountered Americans online who are convinced that they will face an armed 
conflict with a rising China in the future. Perhaps. But they often seem to take it for granted that 
such a conflict will be triggered by Chinese aggression against "foreign devils." I'm not so sure 
about that. Right now I don't see what interest the Chinese should have in provoking a war. They 
are currently behaving smarter than the Americans in many respects. I suspect that the Chinese are 
quite happy with selling cheap toasters to the United States while their presidents are bankrupting 
the country by making the world safe for sharia, their businesses are outsourcing jobs to Asia and 
their universities are educating Asian students. 

The USA, on the other hand, is a country with a massive national debt and large armed forces, a 
potent combination which has facilitated wars in the past. I don't rule out the possibility that 
Chinese nationalists could create trouble at some point but frankly, if there is a war between China 
and the United States in the near future it may well be triggered by the USA, not China. 

Whether the Americans, whose armed forces are infiltrated by Muslim Jihadists and Mexican gang 
members, would win a conventional war is a different matter. After the Muslim Nidal Hasan killed 
many of his fellow soldiers the US military intensified its efforts to recruit more Muslims to the 
military. Recruiting people from hostile cultures to protect your country is the behavior of nations 
that want to die, and apparently, that is what the West now wants to do. 

The US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was named Time magazine's Person of the Year 


for "saving" the global economy. Man of the Year, as the award was called before our gender 
neutral age, has earlier been awarded to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin (twice), the Ayatollah Khomeini 
and other distinguished gentlemen, so Mr. Bernanke is in good company. 

Yet as the insightful financial observer Karl Denninger states, " Bernanke 's actions have singularly 
done more damage to the American economy - and America - than anyone in the history of this 
nation. He clearly eclipses Nixon in his dissembling, while making a mockery of the free market." 
This is because "By encouraging the bubble economy during Greenspan's time in The Fed 
(Bernanke was the chief agitator for 1% interest rates - and holding them too low during the early 
part of the 2000s) and trying to restart the bubble economy this time around through both ZIRP and 
intentional distortions through the credit markets, shielding those who made bad decisions while 
cramming the inflationary pressures down the throat of trading partners, Bernanke has guaranteed 
the loss of global reserve currency status for The Dollar. Our Senate is too stupid to recognize this 
and stop his re-nomination." 

Regarding the financial crisis of 2008, Denninger comments that "We have fixed nothing in the last 
two years." In his view, ". . .the root problem is an excessive level of debt in the system at all levels, 
a level of debt that exceeds capacity to pay, and as a consequence any and all attempts to restart the 
credit-driven consumption economy would fail, and if pressed too far the government will fail. The 
evidence strongly suggests that you are getting awfully close to your last chance to stop being 
stupid before the market hands you a lesson that has the potential to destroy both our economy and 

In case Europeans believe that the EU is in a much better shape, the same man also claims that the 
Eurozonejs "an absolute train wreck" which is "dancing with jugs of nitroglycerine." 

The price of gold will probably continue to rise. Investors buy precious metals because they no 
longer trust many currencies, above all the US dollar, and they are right to distrust the dollar. 
Although the price of gold has already risen significantly, the expatriate American investor Jim 
Rogers b elieves this is not a bubble since virtually nobody still owns gold. As a friend of mine 
comments, "I think gold is going to hold the level for a while now, for some months bordering to 
half a year. Then, due to the money-printing, the sky will be the limit." 

I have heard several people who are into precious metals state that silver is currently preferable to 
gold, and platinum may be a good bet as well. Exactly which precious metal is better I will leave to 
the experts, but a combination of all three might be sensible, in addition to property or other assets. 
This could be one of the few cases where "diversity" really is a good thing. An ancient and time- 
tested advice is to never put all of your eggs in one basket. 

According to blogger Dennis Mangan, "While predictions are difficult to make, especially about the 
future, Williams marshals the facts that support his analysis. Runaway government spending, aided 
and abetted by massive printing of dollars by the Federal reserve, have doomed the dollar. It is only 
a matter of timing. A hyperinflation will be accompanied by political upheaval and, in my opinion, 
could see the end of the U.S. as we know it. What shape that upheaval would take is anyone's 

Not all observers agree that the USA is facing a hyperinflation; there are those who believe the 
result will rather be a serious deflation. Whatever will be the end result it is quite evident that the 
United States is now headed for turbulent times, financially and politically. Since ethnic diversity is 
rapidly increasing and national cohesion is decreasing correspondingly, a Second American Civil 
War could be considered one of several possible outcomes. 

Frankly, I suspect that more or less the entire Western world is heading for serious financial 
instability and Multicultural tribalistic violence in the coming generation. The most important thing 
that the common man can do in such turbulent times is to be mentally and physically prepared to 
protect the life and property of his family as best as he can until the dust settles. This includes 
having guns and ammunition as well as money. All things considered I believe that Americans and 


Westerners in general would be smart to invest some of their savings in metals as soon as possible, 
starting with gold, silver and lead, not necessarily in that order. 


Fjordman - the first five years 

Saturday, February 20, 2010 

Five years ago today, on the 20th of February 2005, 1 made my first ever blog post under the name 
Fjordman. Back then Little Green Footballs was the leading blog in the movement and linked to my 
very first post as well as quite a few of my essays over the next couple of years. As most readers 
would know, things have changed substantially on that account since then, yet I am still here and 
doing fine while Charles Johnson's LGF has become a universal joke. In some ways I guess that is 
sad, but Mr. Johnson made his choice and has to live with that. 

In early 2006, a few weeks after I closed my old blog, I talked to Robert Spencer and was offered 
the opportunity to post at his website Jihad Watch . I told him that I might do so, but I intended to 
publish few essays in the future. It is an understatement to say that these plans were altered. How 
much material have I published during these years? I honestly have no idea, but the last time I 
checked I counted hundreds of thousands of words, and that was a long time ago. If I have to guess 
I would say that I have published at least half a million words online for free, and approaching one 
million. Since I sometimes write several posts about related subjects or quote some of my older 
posts the total amount of original material is somewhat less, but even after editing I have certainly 
published enough material for at least half a dozen to a dozen books of full length (60-80,000 
words). So far only one book has been published on paper, Defeating Eurabia , but I am currently 
working on more titles. 

When looking back I notice that I currently write about many more topics than I did when I started 
out in 2005. Back then I concentrated mainly on Islam and Islamic Jihad. This still constitutes a 
significant part of my writings and will continue to do so as long as I publish essays online. The 
reason why I write about more subjects today is that I have come to realize that Islam is a secondary 
infection. Are Islamic teachings inherently violent? Yes. Can Islam be reformed? No. Can Islam be 
reconciled with our way of life? No. Is there such as thing as a moderate Islam? No. Can we 
continue to allow Muslims to settle in our countries? No. 

These few sentences contain all the information about Islam that you will ever need to know. It is 
still useful to know more about the way your enemy thinks and how to exploit his weak points, yet 
there is no point in spending too much time on studying the failed Islamic culture. 

Our culture did many things right, but has gone horribly wrong along the way. The interesting 
question here is not what is wrong with Islam since Islam has always been wrong. The interesting 
question is what is wrong with us. Consequently, I devote more time to explore this subject. This is 
why I write essays about historical subjects, even beer. First of all I want to celebrate what our 
civilization has achieved and reclaim our history. Second, I want to take a closer look at our history 
to analyze exactly where and when things went so wrong. I hope to publish two books, one each on 
these two subjects, within the next couple of years. These will contain a little bit about Islam but it 
will be a secondary subject in them, as it should be. 

Things don't always go as planned, but sometimes the way they turn out can be better than you had 
originally envisioned. I liked the Gates of Vienna when I had my own blog. This is why I accepted 
an invitation to publish here as a guest blogger, in addition to The Brussels Journal and other 
websites. Yet I honestly didn't predict that GoV would turn out to be one of the most important 
websites on the entire Internet for my line of work, but it has. I guess it was a very lucky accident, 
although religious people will probably give another explanation and claim that it was fate. And 


maybe they are right for all I know. 

The Baron has called GoV a "group effort". In a sense that's true, but the only reason why others 
desire to publish here is because the Baron and Dymphna have made such an excellent blog. I want 
to thank them for that. I know I speak for others, too, if I express the hope that they will continue 
blogging, although none of us will ever get rich from doing this. I should also thank the Dutch 
blogger Klein Verzet for helping to make my essays available in a user-friendly way with the 
Fjordman files . 


Democracy and universalism 

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 

Authors James E. McClellan and Harold Dorn in their book Science and Technology in World 
History claim that Newtonian philosophy was a major force behind the European Enlightenment 
which followed it. "Ironically, with his mystical speculations largely hidden until the twentieth 
century, Newton may be fairly said to be a founding father of the Enlightenment, that campaign of 
reason against superstition and irrationality that arose in France and then spread across eighteenth- 
century Europe and America." 

The concept of the "clockwork God" inspired by the success of Newton and his successors at 
explaining the orbits of comets and planets influenced philosophes such as Voltaire and 
Montesquieu. Many scholars wanted to apply this progress in the natural sciences to the social 
sciences as well: 

"Indeed, the first Enlightenment document may well be the ode penned by Edmond Halley to 
preface the first edition of the Principia, wherein Halley wrote of understanding the world: 'In 
reason's light, the clouds of ignorance/Dispelled at last by science.' Voltaire attended Newton's 
funeral and brought back the famous anecdote of having left France and a universe filled with the 
Cartesian aether to arrive in England and a universe of empty Newtonian space. 

By the middle of the eighteenth century, aided by Voltaire and Madame du Chatelet, Newton's 
science conquered France and won out over Descartes among French intellectuals and scientists. 
The forces associated with Newtonian science and the Newtonian Enlightenment were liberal, 
progressive, reformist, and even revolutionary, and they played major roles in the prehistory and 
history of the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789. Indeed, as 
evidenced in the Declaration of Independence, with its proposition that 'all men are created equal,' 
the political realm can be represented as a Newtonian system of politically equal citizen-atoms 
moving in law-like patterns under the influence of a universal political gravity and a democratic 
impulse toward civil association." 

A number of historians have questioned whether there was any link between the Scientific 
Revolution and the more practically oriented Industrial Revolution that followed it. In The Gifts of 
Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy, economic historian Joel Mokyr argues that 
the missing link between the Scientific and the Industrial Revolution was the Industrial 
Enlightenment. This period gave rise to a new mentality, and the spillover effects of this mentality 
were as important as the new knowledge directly generated by it. 

The Industrial Enlightenment's debt to the Scientific Revolution consisted of scientific method, 
scientific mentality and scientific culture. One of the most direct links between the seventeenth 
century and the emerging industrial changes of the late eighteenth century was the emphasis on 
experiment and the scientific method. Important was also scientific mentality, the concept that the 
world was orderly and rational and that natural phenomena could be predicted and described 
mathematically according to universal laws. As Mokyr says: 

"The early seventeenth century witnessed the work of Kepler and Galileo that explicitly tried to 
integrate mathematics with natural philosophy, a slow and arduous process, but one that eventually 
changed the way all useful knowledge was gathered and analyzed. Once the natural world became 


intelligible, it could be tamed: because technology at base involves the manipulation of nature and 
the physical environment, the metaphysical assumptions under which people engaged in production 
operate, are ultimately of crucial importance. 

The Industrial Enlightenment learned from the natural philosophers - especially from Newton, who 
stated it explicitly in the famous opening pages of Book Three of the Principia - that the 
phenomena produced by nature and the artificial works of mankind were subject to the same laws. 
That view squarely contradicted orthodox Aristotelianism. The growing belief in the rationality of 
nature and the existence of knowable natural laws that govern the universe, the archetypical 
Enlightenment belief, led to a growing use of mathematics in pure science as well as in engineering 
and technology." 

This new orderly world has been dubbed the Newtonian universe. Ironically, as his biographer 
James Gleick points out, Newton himself was not a Newtonian; he as a deeply religious man, albeit 
in a highly unorthodox manner, who looked for hidden information in the Bible and embraced the 
mysticism of alchemy. Authors McClellan and Dorn agree with this view: 

"In the quest after secret knowledge, alchemy occupied the major portion of Newton's time and 
attention from the mid- 1670s through the mid- 1680s. His alchemical investigations represent a 
continuation and extension of his natural philosophical researches into mechanics, optics, and 
mathematics. Newton was a serious, practicing alchemist - not some sort of protochemist. He kept 
his alchemical furnaces burning for weeks at a time, and he mastered the difficult occult literature. 
He did not try to transmute lead into gold; instead, using alchemical science, he pried as hard as he 
could into forces and powers at work in nature. He stayed in touch with an alchemical underground, 
and he exchanged alchemical secrets with Robert Boyle and John Locke. The largest part of 
Newton's manuscripts and papers concern alchemy, and the influence of alchemy reverberates 
throughout Newton's published opus. This was not the Enlightenment's Newton." 

There are both indirect and direct links between the new natural philosophy and the emerging 
political philosophy of the modern West. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes was exposed to 
European scientific thought during the early Scientific Revolution, including a renewed seventeenth 
century interest in the atomism of Greco-Roman Antiquity. It doesn't require much imagination to 
see a potential connection between atomism and the random collection of atomized human beings 
described in Hobbes' political philosophy and his concept of a "war of all against all." His 
mechanistic understanding of the world and human society influenced his 1651 book Leviathan. 
The social contract theory he introduced there was carried further in very different directions by 
John Locke and Jean- Jacques Rousseau. 

The English philosopher and physician John Locke influenced leading individuals in both the 
French and the Scottish Enlightenment, among them Voltaire, as well as the American Founding 
Fathers. He was a proponent of the idea that the human mind is a blank slate or tabula rasa. In 
addition to philosophy he was also a man of science who studied experimental philosophy and 
medicine under the tutelage of leading physicians such as Thomas Sydenham. He worked with 
noted scientists like Robert Boyle and corresponded with Isaac Newton. Locke's Second Treatise on 
Civil Government from 1689 and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding from 1690 were 
published shortly after Newton's great Principia from 1687. 

One of the developments that took place during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries following the 
American and French Revolutions was the spread of democracy in the Western world. In Antiquity 
and plainly up until the American Founding Fathers, "democracy" was never seen as anything self- 


evidently good. Plato and Aristotle were quite critical of it, although the democratic system in 
ancient Greece was rather different from the modern one. 

As John Dunn says in his book Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy, a title he admits 
carries some degree of irony, in the Athens Assembly citizens had the right not merely to vote on all 
proposals coming before it and thus to determine together its outcome, but also to address it 
themselves. This fierce directness of Athenian democracy contrasts sharply with the more indirect 
system often called "representative democracy" that is practiced in the modern West. Indeed, the 
two systems are so different that calling the latter "democracy" would have caused confusion 
among leading figures from Athens during the Hellenic age: 

"Under democracy the citizens of Athens, quite reasonably and accurately, supposed that they were 
ruling themselves. But the vastly less exclusive citizen bodies of modern democracies very 
obviously do nothing of the kind. Instead, they select from a menu which they can do little 
individually to modify, whichever they find least dismaying amongst the options on offer." 
Moreover, "If the ancient democracy was the citizens choosing freely and immediately for 
themselves, modern democracy, it seems, is principally the citizens very intermittently, choosing 
under highly constrained circumstances, the relatively small number of their fellows who will from 
then on choose for them." 

While citizens were more actively and directly involved in the decision-making process back then, 
another major difference between ancient and modern democracy is that only a minority of the male 
inhabitants of ancient Athens were citizens; giving the vote to all those who happened to live within 
the city limits, including women and recent immigrants, would have been perceived as absurd. This 
contrasts sharply with the modern West where "democracy" is defined by universal suffrage where 
every adult male and female has an equal vote. 

This concept has been carried to its logic conclusion: The system should be truly universal in that it 
should extend to include every single human being on Earth. The idea promoted by US President 
George W. Bush that the "global expansion of democracy" should roll back terrorism is denounced 
by John Dunn as "a glaring instance of ideological overstretch." 

Not only did Bush perceive his country to be a "democracy," despite the fact that it was founded as 
a Constitutional Republic; he perceived it as being "universal." Every person on planet Earth from 
whatever cultural background can move to the United States and become an equal citizen. The USA 
is thus a "universal" nation, and its universal democracy should be exported to all countries around 
the world. This version of "universalism" would have been profoundly alien to the ancient Greeks, 
yet has become a prominent feature of the post-Enlightenment West. "We no longer consider any 
human action legitimate, or even intelligible," wrote the French late twentieth century philosopher 
Pierre Manent, "unless it can be shown to be subject to some universal rule of law, or to some 
universal ethical principle." 

Where does this notion come from? One of the most impressive features of Newton's theory of 
universal gravity is that it was literally universal and assumed to apply throughout the entire 
universe. It is not strange that Newton, a deeply devout Christian man who believed that the 
universe had been created by a single God, believed this. What is remarkable is that he has since 
been proven right: Gravity does apply throughout the entire known universe. 

Albert Einstein in his general theory of relativity in the early twentieth century showed that gravity 


is not, strictly speaking, a force as traditionally understood but a property of space itself as it curves 
around massive objects. However, gravity is no less universal today than it was in Newton's day 
Observational evidence indicates that the theories of Newton and Einstein can largely (with some 
yet-unexplained exceptions) predict the movements of distant galaxies billions of light-years away 
A scientific theory cannot be more successful than that. 

The problem is that the immense success of modern natural science has generated the often 
unrealistic expectation that we can uncover equally universal mathematical laws in the social 
sciences to describe and explain the behavior of all human beings. Moreover, while the 
experimental method has been immensely useful in the natural sciences it becomes more of a mixed 
bag and potentially dangerous when it is applied to politics and societies, and when the subject 
matter for your experiments is living human beings rather than lifeless substances. 

The underlying belief behind the American-led efforts to export "democracy" to Islamic countries 
such as Iraq and Afghanistan is that all human beings should be subject to democracy, just like they 
are subject to gravity. But as we have seen, gravity applies throughout the entire known universe. 
What happens if we discover intelligent life on other planets? My bet is that on day one we will all 
be excited over finding E.T On day two, American neoconservatives will ask whether E.T. has 
democracy. If he doesn't, the USA must promptly send an interplanetary expeditionary force to 
export democracy to his planet. After all, if E.T has gravity then E.T. must also have democracy, 
just like Afghan Muslims. 


Book review: Wafa Sultan's "A God Who Hates" 

Monday, April 05, 2010 

Book Review: A God Who Hates, Wafa Sultan - by Fjordman 

The book A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out 
Against the Evils of Islam was written by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American ex-Muslim. Breaking 
with Islam takes tremendous courage, as the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam is still 
upheld today The only good byproduct of Muslim immigration to the West is that it has allowed a 
handful of such former Muslims to publish their thoughts about leaving Islam. One of these titles is 
Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Ou t, edited by Ibn Warraq. Another is Understanding Muhammad 
by the Iranian ex-Muslim AH Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International. I have reviewed his 
book at Jihad Watch previously. 

In her writing, Wafa Sultan draws extensively on her own personal experiences as well as those of 
friends and others in her society, especially the women, who suffer from an appalling level of 
brutality and repression. She manages in a very convincing manner to tie many of these problems 
directly to Islamic teachings, all the way back to Muhammad, his wives and companions. Far from 
representing a "perversion" of Islam, she shows us that the repression and violence that is endemic 
in Islamic societies represent the true essence of Islam. □ 

In sharp contrast to the self-proclaimed "reformist" Irshad Manji, whose knowledge of Islamic 
doctrines is quite limited. Sultan shows us how Islam was born in the Arabian desert and is still 
shaped by this 1400 years later. The raids Muhammad and his companions carried out in his lifetime 
- which amounted to at least twenty-seven if you believe Islamic sources - occupy a major part of 
his biography. They were intended to acquire booty, but also to inflict physical and mental harm 
upon rival tribes in order to deprive them of their ability to resist. 

Wafa Sultan, page 66: "For me, understanding the truth about the thought and behavior of Muslims 
can only be achieved through an in-depth understanding of this philosophy of raiding that has rooted 
itself firmly in the Muslim mind. Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a 
means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it. Muslims in the twenty- 
first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to 
raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their 
relationships, and their decisions. When I immigrated to America I discovered right away that the 
local inhabitants were not proficient in raiding while the expatriate Muslims could not give it up." 

On the Islamic "culture of shouting and raiding," she states on page 69: "My experience has been 
that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, 
especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a 
Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks 
you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else - Muslim or non-Muslim - 
cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could 
remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said." 

A master-and-slave mentality dominates Arab-Islamic society, both in public and in private. A 
person can often be a master in one relationship and a slave in another, simultaneously. 

Page 158: "When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American 
saying 'speak softly and carry a big stick,' is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. 


It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), 'speak forcefully 
and carry a big stick'; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot 
spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they 
cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave." 

A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own 
shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God's will. There is no 
clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don't happen 
inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them. 

Page 215: "Never in my life have I heard or read of a Muslim man's expressing feelings of guilt 
about something he has done, even in fiction. People feel guilty only when they feel a sense of 
responsibility and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. But Muslims are infallible: The 
mere fact that they are Muslim makes their every error pardonable. A man's adherence to Islam is 
defined not by his actions and responsibilities, but only by the profession of faith he recites: 'I 
testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God. ' As long as he 
continues to repeat this profession of faith he will continue to be a Muslim, and no crime he may 
commit against others can diminish this. Saddam Hussein was one of the great tyrants of history, but 
most Sunni Muslims consider him a martyr. At his funeral they chanted: 'To paradise, oh beloved of 

Islam constitutes an extremely and arguably uniquely repressive belief system. Already in the first 
days of Islam, Muhammad linked obedience to himself with obedience to God. 

A God Who Hates, page 159: "Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself 
and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: 'Whosoever 
obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, 
and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.' In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the 
mountaintop, as follows: 'Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you' (4:59). 
'Those in authority among you' means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, 'your rulers.' In 
order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad 
told them in a hadith: 'Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property' Fearing that 
some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in 
another hadith: 'If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right 
one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns 
out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.'" 

Page 160-161: "Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a 
Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience 
toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one 
denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one. How can a 
Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying 
him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and 
therefore also to his God? He cannot. Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its 
inception, and remains so today. Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of 
slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while 
they themselves have no right to protest against this behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and 
the people obey him by divine decree." 

Islam is totalitarian to such an extent that it is difficult to comprehend for outsiders. Critics often 
compare it to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism from the Western world, 
which is apt in many ways. Yet Islam is even more totalitarian than those creeds. Even the Nazis and 


the Communists didn't ban wine and beer, all works of pictorial art, sculptures and most types of 
music. I can think of other religious denominations and groups who restrict the use of alcohol, but I 
cannot think of any other religious creed on this planet that bans wine, pictorial art and most forms 
of music at the same time. Islam is unique in this regard. 

I have developed a beer hypothesis of civilization, which stipulates that any society that does not 
enjoy beer and wine cannot produce good science. I say this 80% as a joke and 20% seriously. The 
Middle East before Islam produced some scientific advances at a time when the ancient civilizations 
were great consumers of beer and wine. The Middle East after Islam did, for a while, produce a few 
scholars of medium rank, but these contributions steadily declined until they almost disappeared. 
This time period overlaps with the period when there were still sizeable non-Muslim communities 
and by extension sizeable production and consumption of wine in this area. The medieval Persian 
scholar Omar Khayyam was a good mathematician, but a bad Muslim who loved wine. The 
Ottoman Turks largely chased away what remained of wine culture in that region. Incidentally, the 
Turks also contributed next to nothing to science. 

The one possible objection I can see to the consumption of beer and wine is that some men become 
alcoholics who proceed to beat their wives, and some women beat or abuse their children when they 
drink. This is unfortunately true sometimes and constitutes an issue that should not be ignored. Yet 
Islamic societies suffer from an extreme level of child abuse, domestic violence and general 
violence of all kinds, which means that the one really serious objection to alcoholic beverages 
carries no meaning there. The Koran 4:34 says quite explicitly that men are allowed to beat their 
women.Ibn Warraq (Editor) They don't need to get drunk to do so. 

A God Who Hates is easy to read, but at the same time deeply disturbing and packed with examples 
from everyday life of how Islamic doctrines ruin the lives of millions of people. Wafa Sultan's book 
provides us with an insightful, but unpleasant look into a culture that damages the soul of its 
inhabitants. It paints a portrait of a society where women are mistreated daily and barely seen as 
human. They will in turn project their own traumas on their sons, daughters and daughters-in-law, 
creating an endless cycle of mental and physical abuse. It is very hard to see how this vicious cycle 
can be broken without repudiating Islam. 


Fjordman: the European Union and "beautiful" minarets 

April 15, 2010 5:52 AM 

Inspired by Bat Ye'or's groundbreaking work Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis , I wrote my own book 
Defeating Eurabia in 2008. My conclusion back then, which still stands today, was that the 
European Union constitutes a threat to the entire European continent and needs to be dismantled: 

"The EU has accepted that the Union should be enlarged to include the Muslim Middle 
East and North Africa. The EU has accepted that tens of millions of immigrants from 
predominantly Muslim countries in northern Africa should be allowed to settle in 
Europe in the years ahead. This is supposedly 'good for the economy' It is planning to 
implement sharia laws for the millions of Muslims it is inviting to settle in Europe. It 
has passed stronger anti-racism laws while making it clear that 'Islamophobia' 
constitutes a form of racism, and is cooperating with Islamic countries on rewriting 
school textbooks to provide a 'positive' image of Islam to European children. Finally, the 
EU is developing an Arrest Warrant which stipulates that those charged with serious 
crimes, for instance racism, can be arrested without undue interference of the nation 
state they happen to live in. In essence, the EU is formally surrendering an entire 
continent to Islam while destroying established national cultures, and is prepared to 
harass those who disagree with this policy. This constitutes the greatest organized 
betrayal in Western history, yet is hailed as a victory for 'tolerance.'" 

Those who still believe that Eurabia is a merely "conspiracy theory" should take a closer look at 
how European authorities handled the Swiss ban on the building of minarets, which constitute a 
visible symbol of Islamic supremacy. For example, the Ottoman Turks used the minaret as one of 
the elements to visually appropriate conquered Byzantine churches and convert them to mosques. 
The ancient Bulgarian town of Nessebar was a part of the First and Second Bulgarian Empires from 
the seventh to the fourteenth century AD and saw the creation of numerous medieval churches. Yet 
like the rest of the Balkans it experienced centuries of steep cultural and economic decline 
following the Turkish Muslim conquests. 

This is described in The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe , edited by Lowell Clucas. Although 
many churches were destroyed or converted into mosques during the conquests, some survived. 
Under favorable conditions, old churches could be restored or even a few new ones built, although 
this goes against sharia. However, (page 61), "The physical smallness of these churches is a correct 
gauge of the general status enjoyed by Christianity within the Ottoman Empire. It is also a correct 
gauge of the economic power of its patrons: a modest Christian middle class and generally small 
monastic communities." The official prohibition of the use of bells was strictly enforced in all but 
the most peripheral areas under Ottoman rule as the Turks loathed the sound of bells. The Byzantine 
Legacy in Eastern Europe, page 68: 

"According to other, popular Islamic beliefs, bells were thought to attract evil spirits, or 
to keep angels away. Not only was there a strict policy forbidding their use, but there 
were evidently continuous efforts at complete eradication of bells. The few surviving 
examples of medieval bells have been preserved, it would seem, because they were 
buried to protect them from the Turkish purges. The general Turkish attitude toward 
bells, and the resulting policy prohibiting their use, left an imprint on Orthodox church 
architecture. Turkish wrath was directed not solely against bells, but also against 
architectural features associated with them - belfries. Their highly visible presence on a 
city's skyline must have been perceived by the Moslems as an unwanted competition 
with their minarets. Dismantling of belfries, therefore, became a norm. Archaeological 
work on churches throughout the territory once held by the Byzantine empire suggests 


that many more once had belfries than is now apparent. Indeed, the few preserved 
examples of belfries, particularly among urban churches, did survive only because they 
were adapted for minarets by the Turks." 

Following the liberation of the Balkan states from Turkish rule, much larger churches and 
cathedrals were built in southeastern Europe, from Skopje to Sofia. In Athens , the capital of 
liberated Greece, a new Orthodox Cathedral was built between 1842 and 1862, using marble from 
72 demolished churches. Inside are colorful Byzantine-style frescoes and the tombs of two saints 
killed by the Turks: Saint Philothei (1522-1589) is honored for ransoming Greek women who had 
been enslaved in Turkish harems. Gregory V, Patriarch of Constantinople, was hanged and thrown 
into the Bosphorus in 1821 during the Greek uprising. 

The skyline of Bulgaria's capital city Sofia is dominated by the magnificent Alexander Nevsky 
Cathedral, one of the largest Eastern Orthodox cathedrals in the world whose construction began in 
1882 and was designed by the Russian architect Alexander Pomerantsev (1849-1918). Its 45 meters 
gold-plated dome is only slightly smaller than that of the famous Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. 
St. Mark's Church in the center of Belgrade, Serbia, was built in the 1930s and is among the tallest 
Orthodox churches in the Balkans. 

The old regulations used in the Balkans to subdue non-Muslims are now being exported to Western 
Europe, for instance in Britain in 2010, because of Muslim immigration. According to Islamic law, 
dhimmis - primarily Jews and Christians under the "protection" of the Islamic state - are forbidden 
to openly display wine or pork, to ring church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Gospels 
aloud or to make public display of their funerals and feast days because this offends Muslims living 
in the area. As Robert Spencer writes in Stealth Jihad : 

"On October 13, 1999, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Izmir, Turkey, Giuseppe 
Germano Bernardini, warned the Synod of European Bishops about a 'clear program' 
among Muslims for the 're-conquest' of Europe. 'During an official meeting on Islamic- 
Christian dialogue,' he wrote, 'an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the 
Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: 'Thanks to your 
democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.' 
This domination, he continued, has already begun - 'with the 'petro-dollars,' used not to 
create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques 
and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration, including Rome, 
the center of Christianity How can we ignore in all of this a clear program of expansion 
and re-conquest?' Bernardini also recorded one Muslim's piquant expression of Islamic 
supremacism: 'During another Islamic-Christian meeting, always organized by 
Christians, a Christian participant publicly asked the Muslims present why they did not 
organize at least once a meeting of this kind. The Muslim authority present answered 
the following words: 'Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have 
nothing to learn.'" 

Spencer warns that "Through massive immigration and official dhimmitude from European leaders, 
Muslims are accomplishing today what they have tried but failed to do for over a millennium: 
conquer Europe." 

They are actively aided in this undertaking by European authorities. The Council of Europe , in 
close cooperation with the EU, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League 
and other Islamic organizations, is working to combat "Islamophobia" in Europe by all means 
necessary. In February 2010 , a few months after the referendum that banned minarets in 
Switzerland, COJEP International and EMISCO (European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion) 
with the support of the Council of Europe and the OIC launched a contest to select the most 
beautiful existing minaret in Europe. According to them, mosques have become a "permanent 
addition" to our urban landscapes that Westerners should get used to: 


"It is however unfortunate, that lately some populist politicians and a section of media 
has made minarets an issue to curtail fundamental rights. This has resulted in attacks on 
ethnic and religious minorities and spreading of hate crimes against Muslim people in 
Europe. It is therefore important that the universal peaceful presence of Islam is visible 
and its followers are able to practice their religion openly as is the case with other 
religions. This photo contest is also intended to remove the misplaced fears and 
prejudices in European societies that Islam and Muslims undermine the Western values 
and cultures." 

The winners will be presented at a press conference to be held at the European Parliament on the 
20 th of April 2010. An exhibition of the most beautiful pictures of minarets and mosques will be 
held at the Council of Europe later this year. As we have seen, a minaret is a symbol of Islamic 
supremacy and dominance over non-Muslims. The EU Parliament will thus hail the "most 
beautiful" symbol of the Islamic colonization of Europe and the subjugation of the native 
population of an entire continent to Islamic rule. There can be no better reminder of the fact that the 
European Union is not just an active collaborator in the destruction of European civilization, but in 
some ways arguably its main engine. The only long-term solution to this problem is to permanently 
end Muslim immigration to all Western nations, to abolish and dismantle organizations such as the 
EU and the CoE and to get rid of Multiculturalism. 


Can we coexist with the left? 

3 May 2010 

The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of 
splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a 
universal totalitarian ideology, not a "live and let live" concept. 

The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists need 
conservatives but conservatives don't need leftists. To be blunt, they can't let us go. We'd be happy 
to be rid of them, because to us they're nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can't get 
rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality 
that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative 
population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities. 

A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not 
only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be 
brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and 
that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed 
communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout 
Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they 
happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don't just want to rule 
themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well. 

Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted 
partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the 
Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to 
violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of "just wanting to be left alone" 
is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we 
go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy. 

As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most 
revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the 
Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled 
"moderates," whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from 
settling in their countries are demonized as "racist extremists" by the media. 

As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show absolute moral disgust and horror against white non- 
liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The 
only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, 
who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects 
around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out. 

In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down 
their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust 
in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax 
Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support 
for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an 
interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that 
"Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that 
never would have been possible before." He warned against those who were too negative regarding 
the policies of Leftist politicians. 

2009 , the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation's changing 
demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American 


audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage 
and stated that "this is a very positive thing." This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim 
terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US 
citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. 
Clinton at all. The only "terrorism" he is concerned about might be protests from people of 
European origins who oppose their own dispossession. 

Bertha Lewis , the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for 
Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. 
There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will "dwarf the internments during World 
War II." Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration 
is a big battle. 

And the reason this is so important is, you know, here's the secret: (whispering) We're getting 
ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We'll be like South Africa. More black 
people than white people. Don't tell anybody. 

Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to "get yourselves together, get 
strong, get big, and get into this battle," the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. 
She's the head of an organization that's been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein 
Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over 
allegations of voter registration fraud. 

As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly 
sided with its Islamic enemies . 

In April 2010 US President Obama , with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, 
appealed to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 
2008 [to] stand together once again" for continued "change," essentially the manifestation of an 
intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the 
radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. 
Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone 
down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like "Socialists" in his view "closes the door to the 
possibility of compromise" and "can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that 
perhaps violence is a justifiable response." 

The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out 
violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa 
groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know 
they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of 
Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because 
organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference 
that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor 
lamented , the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from 
Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the 
people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot 
meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do 

In her book A God Who Hates , the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic 
"culture of shouting and raiding." She states 

"My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their 
conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with 
each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a 
low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have 


lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else - Muslim or non-Muslim - 
cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother 
could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said." 

Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What 
is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything 
Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, 
everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good. 

Facts don't matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread "that it is 
considered to be normal. 

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was 
deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific 
frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they 
had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They 
believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed 
to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya. 

Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for 
Socratic Dialogue , the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its 
best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or 
Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, 
which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They 
consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently 
Squashed. End of story. 

People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for 
Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some 
radical Socialists apparently believe that a "Final Solution" to the Capitalist Problem involves the 
annihilation of whites. 

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is 
unfortunately correct here : What is happening with the native population throughout Western 
Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that's unique about 
Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing. 

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for "ethnic cleansing" back in 1999, thereby facilitating 
the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs 
are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have 
publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. 
So why isn't that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently 
followed in all Western nations without exception? 

Let med add that I don't think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have 
some in my immediate family, and they don't think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what 
they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be 
a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little. 

In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then 
you have to resist. It doesn't matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they 
deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to 
do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot 
be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, 
plain and simple. That's why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is 
possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this 
situation could trigger a pan- Western Civil War. 


How to destroy a people through immigration 

Friday, May 14, 2010 

The WND commentator Vox Day has this to say about the use of immigration for the purposes of 
subversion and colonization: 

Throughout history, when an occupying power has wanted to destabilize and destroy a nation, 
it has settled a foreign people in its midst. The seeds of the Balkan conflict were sown when 
the Turks planted Albanian Muslims in Kosovo to uproot the Christian Serbs who had long 
defended the borders of medieval Christendom and had more than once turned back the tide 
of an expanding Ottoman empire. The Soviet Union under Stalin methodically encouraged 
Russian emigration into the occupied Baltic states in a campaign of long-term Russification, 
to such an extent that nearly 30 percent of the populations of Latvia and Estonia were 

Here is what I wrote three years ago. The same principles apply to North America: 

Multiculturalism is simply a tool for divide and conquer. Is there then any point in trying to 
comprehend its logic at all? Maybe it was just a convenient excuse used for disrupting the 
established order of nation states by flooding them with mass immigration under the cover of 
"cultural diversity" or historical inevitability. If that is the case, there never was any coherent 
logic behind it, so we shouldn't waste our time looking for one. Many of those promulgating 
it never believed a word of it themselves. Multiculturalism is the new Allah: Don't 
understand, just obey. 

This was undertaken by a coalition of different groups with a shared goal of undermining 
Western nation states. I heard supporters of mass immigration a generation ago state that all 
this talk about how it would change our societies into the unrecognizable was scare - 
mongering and racism. Now, the same groups are saying that yes, our societies have been 
changed forever. It's good, and it's anyway too late to do anything about it, so get used to it! 
Their propaganda was used to deceive the public and keep it off balance in order to 
implement potentially irreversible changes with little real debate. They knew they would 
never get the permission to destroy their own countries, so they simply didn't ask. 

By dismantling national borders, the EU has facilitated the largest migration waves in 
European history. When Poland became a member, many Poles moved to Britain, Germany 
etc. This left Poland with a labor shortage. They are now considering importing workers from 
the Ukraine and Russia to compensate for the Poles that left. At the same time, native Brits are 
fleeing to Spain because they don't feel at home in Britain anymore. By such moves, you 
unleash a chain migration that will eventually smash nation states that have existed for ages. 
Yet this intra-European migration pales in comparison to the immigration from developing 
nations. The end result will — supposedly — be an entire continent of people without any 
national loyalties who will be divided, disoriented and thus presumably easier to control. 
Stalin did the same thing, moving large population groups around to unsettle the state and 
keep it disunited. The EU has learned a lot from Stalin. 


Flaws of democracy 

Thursday, May 27, 2010 

Those following the news these days cannot avoid noticing that many wealthy democratic nations, 
from Japan via Britain to the USA, simultaneously suffer from heavy public debt. The fact that this 
serious problem affects many different countries at the same time indicates that it is systemic. There 
are probably several reasons for this, but the hypothesis that it is at least partly related to flaws in 
the democratic system deserves to be taken seriously. 

The average person likes to enjoy himself today and ignores potential problems for as long as he 
can get away with this, allowing them to pile up until they become nearly unmanageable. Given 
how many difficulties Britain faces because of Multiculturalism and mass immigration from the 
Third World, especially Muslim immigration, it is amazing that parties challenging the status quo, 
such as the UKIP and the BNP, don't get more votes. No matter how you look at it, well over 90% 
of the citizens in 2010 more or less freely voted in favor of the continued destruction of Britain. The 
"Conservatives" no longer constitute a genuine opposition party. 

Bruno Waterfield, who has for years been the Brussels correspondent for The Daily Telegraph 
newspaper, dismisses as fiction the notion that the mainstream political parties in Britain and the 
West represent competing alternatives. In his view they are all careerists, an empty cadre of more or 
less left- leaning elite manager-politicians. "Cameron and Clegg could be interchanged, they are 
identikit managers for a cut-and-paste age without politics. But remember, this anti-political age 
does not mean the end of choices, such as the Iraq war, bank bailouts or austerity. 

It represents the expulsion of alternative points of view, and the public, from the arena. This new 
British government shows us (yet again) that the starting point for those of us with ideals, those of 
us who want politics to be contests between alternative ideas, must work outside unrepresentative 
political parties, parliaments, state institutions and, Clegg's training ground, the EU. 

These are all now institutions that have clearly become about evading or actually removing political 
choice rather than being an expression of it. "The political system isn't working properly if good 
people who genuinely care for their nation's future cannot get into Parliament, but a Leftist nobody 
like Nick Clegg can become Deputy Prime Minister. 

Yes, I know that the EU has messed things up, and yes, I know that there was a lot of media 
censorship and election fraud worthy of some Third World countries. Yet at the end of the day, tens 
of millions of British citizens mindlessly voted for three Leftist parties (the "Conservatives" under 
David Cameron are not really conservative) that go out of their way to insult them and destroy their 
country. Numerous individuals make stupid choices, plain and simple. 

Far too many are addicted to Socialism and government handouts, both in Greece, the cradle of 
democracy in the ancient world, and in Britain, the cradle of parliamentary democracy in the 
modern world. Maybe the best thing Britain can hope for now, if it is going to survive as a nation 
for native Brits, is an Oliver Cromwell type of person. Democracy of universal suffrage has so far 
proved itself inadequate at containing the ongoing Third World invasion of the West. 

The short-term attention span brought about by brief election cycles hasn't been good at dealing 


with long-term threats, economic or otherwise, especially when combined with the dumbing down 
caused by television and the fact that citizenship and voting rights have been handed out like candy 
to members of hostile tribes. The USA was specifically designed to be a Constitutional Republic, not 
a mass democracy 

This arrangement worked well for a long time, yet Americans in 2008 elected an anti-Western 
Marxist as President. It is a fair bet that their Founding Fathers would have been horrified had they 
witnessed this. An African Socialist demagogue like Barack Hussein Obama embodies everything 
they tried to prevent. Perhaps universal suffrage makes a slide to Socialism inevitable, as too many 
people will vote themselves into possession of other people's money. 

They will gradually grow accustomed to this arrangement and will consider it their "right.'The 
English essayist El Ingles defines democracy as "an organizational mechanism for allowing parties 
a) with divergent interests, but who b) wish to function as part of the same polity, to reconcile the 
divergent interests in a) to such a degree that b) becomes possible. 

Having defined democracy in this fashion as a mechanism, I am forced to conclude that it is a 
means, not an end, and that it therefore possesses no more intrinsic moral value than a truck or a 
pair of scissors, themselves devices for achieving certain ends." 

He differentiates between democracy-as-ideal and democracy-as-mechanism. Universal suffrage 
worked for a while in the West because it had a useful role to play in the political needs of these 
countries, but since then it has been smeared out to include the presence of alien and parasitic tribal 

As El Ingles states, "The scale of the collapse awaiting us in Europe is so vast, and the measures 
that we will be required to take so severe, that we should be asking ourselves right now what, if 
anything, can be salvaged of democracy on the other side. It is a sad truth that the existential crisis 
that Europe has brought onto itself in the form of Islam has not been ameliorated in the slightest bit 
by democracy as practiced there in the last sixty years. 

Enlightened dictatorship has rarely looked better. Whether democracy, in the very long term, is a 
good idea or not is a question that will be asked more and more frequently in Europe as the crisis 
worsens. A committed democrat myself, I would like to suggest here that democracy is still just 
about viable if it is understood rather than romanticized." 

It would be tempting to conclude that we should simply hand power over to the self-professed 
elites. The problem is that the Western ruling oligarchs are committed Globalists and/or 
brainwashed Marxists who often make even poorer choices than the masses do. For example, in 
some cases where the masses made sound decisions, such as the Swiss ban on Muslim minarets or 
the Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution, the elites have tried to overrule this. 

In many cases, the public can be rightfully criticized for making poor choices, but they have also 
sometimes been betrayed by people they supported who turned out to be very different from what 
they pretended to be before being elected. Nicolas Sarkozy as French President has disappointed 
millions of ethnic Frenchmen who voted for him, thinking that he would reverse their country's 
slide into poverty and anarchy. As it turns out, he has done virtually nothing to address these issues, 
but has rather intensified the cultural war waged against the natives. 


Mr. Sarkozy apparently cares for nothing other than achieving and maintaining power and the 
personal privileges associated with this, and will serve any lie necessary in order to do so. If he is 
the best candidate who can be elected in France then we must conclude that the best isn't good 
enough and that France can no longer be saved merely by voting. Tony Blair in Britain was widely 
popular in the late 1990s during his early years as Prime Minister, yet he arguably did more to hurt 
his country than any other person in British history. Perhaps mass democracy facilitates the rise of 
accomplished liars such as Blair, Sarkozy or George W. Bush. 

I am personally convinced that a higher degree of political liberty was one of the reasons why 
Europeans outperformed rival civilizations such as China. Even within Western Europe, Britain had 
a healthier political culture than did France, followed by other Germanic-speaking Protestants such 
as the Scandinavians, the Dutch and the Swiss. 

I am here referring to Britain as it was in its prime during the eighteenth, nineteenth and early 
twentieth centuries; Britain in the early twenty-first century is a banana republic on its way to 
becoming an Islamic republic. The principle of power-sharing within the same ethnic group can be 
beneficial for political liberty and long-term stability, but democracy of universal suffrage does not 
guarantee this, nor does the act of voting. 

The very minimum a political system must do is to ensure the survival of your nation and the 
continued existence of you and your kin. If it does not fulfill these criteria then it is useless, 
regardless of what you call it. Right now, it is hard to argue that Western democracies contribute to 
the cultural and genetic survival of their majority populations. We need to realize that democracy is 
a tool to achieve a specific goal, not an end in itself. It is not a bad tool, but perhaps it shouldn't be 
the only one we have in our tool box. 


Assisted suicide 

Friday, June 18,2010 

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times believes that the reason for Turkey's Islamic 
radicalization is that the country hasn't yet gained full access to the European Union. In other 
words, he blames Europeans for not allowing another 70 million plus Muslims free access to their 

Mr. Friedman is widely cited as an "expert on the Middle East," despite the fact that most of the 
pronouncements he has made about that region over the past decade have been demonstrably false. 

As late as in 2005, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf topped the bestseller list in Turkey, second only to a 
book about a Turkish national hero detonating a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C, the capital city 
of its NATO "ally," the USA. Yet Mr. Friedman, an American Jew, is not at all concerned about this. 
His main worry is that Europeans are being mean by not committing cultural suicide fast enough. 

Letter from Istanbul: 

A series of vacuums that emerged in and around Turkey in the last few years have drawn 
Turkey's Islamist government — led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and 
Development Party — away from its balance point between East and West. This could have 
enormous implications. Turkey's balancing role has been one of the most important, quiet, 
stabilizers in world politics. You only notice it when it is gone. Being in Istanbul convinces 
me that we could be on our way to losing it if all these vacuums get filled in the wrong ways. 

The first vacuum comes courtesy of the European Union. After a decade of telling the Turks 
that if they wanted E.U. membership they had to reform their laws, economy, minority rights 
and civilian-military relations — which the Erdogan government systematically did — the 
E.U. leadership has now said to Turkey: "Oh, you mean nobody told you? We're a Christian 
club. No Muslims allowed." The E.U.'s rejection of Turkey, a hugely bad move, has been a 
key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world. 


On the illusion of a moderate islam 

August 10, 2010 11:33 AM 

This essay overlaps to some extent with earlier essays of mine regarding the alleged existence of a 
" moderate Islam ," including Do we want an Islamic Reformation? and Why We Cannot Rely on 
Moderate Muslims . In this discussion I take as my starting point the fact that the traditional Islamic 
religious texts — the Koran supplemented by secondary sources such as the hadith literature — 
through a straightforward reading encourage perpetual violence against non-Muslims around the 
world until the global supremacy of Islam and its followers has been firmly established. There are 
plenty of studies available confirming this. Muslim scholars themselves, including prominent ones 
such as al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun, have supported this view for well over one thousand years and 
continue to do so in the twenty-first century. 

One complicating factor is that lying to or deceiving non-Muslims using techniques known as 
taqiyya and hitman are perfectly permissible in Islam and widely practiced by Shias and Sunnis 
alike. The claim that this strategy exists within Shia Islam alone is false; for example, the 
Palestinian Sunni Jihadist leader Yasser Arafat (1929-2004) at the same time as he was talking about 
"peace" to Westerners — a game of deception which earned him a share in the Nobel Peace Prize in 
1994 — to Arabic-speaking audiences suggested that the Oslo peace negotiations with Israelis were 
merely temporary measures similar to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya between Muhammad's followers 
and the non-Muslim Qurayshi tribe of Mecca, which was promptly broken as soon as the Muslims 
felt strong enough to get away with it. 

Many Muslims, for instance Tariq Ramadan, are known to put up a "moderate" face in front of an 
infidel audience but present a very different message when addressing Muslims in their own 
language. Generally speaking it is permissible for Muslims to lie, or withhold the truth, if they 
cannot yet force their will on their opponents by brute force, as long as they keep the "true Islam" 
alive within their hearts. This does of course not mean that all Muslims do this always, but it is a 
common strategy employed particularly where Muslims are a minority. 

In plain words this means that if Western countries ever become serious about closing their borders 
to Muslim immigration and expelling sharia-sponsoring persons from their lands, we should expect 
to see an immediate, massive increase in the number of "kind" and "tolerant" Muslims in the West, 
but many of them would be lying and biding their time for better days. 

The trouble with self-proclaimed "moderate Muslims" is that many of them, most likely the 
majority, use deception to confuse the infidels while infiltrating their societies. This implies that 
non-Muslims cannot know for sure whether Muslims are being honest with them or not and can 
never fully trust them. It does not mean that "moderate Muslims" don't exist in the form of 
individuals who genuinely desire to live in peace with their neighbors — people aren't born Jihadists 
just because they have a Muslim name — but it is extremely hard for infidels to distinguish between 
those who are genuine and those who are merely trying to deceive us. 

A soft-spoken Muslim can potentially without warning turn militant and go on a killing spree, a 
phenomenon dubbed "Sudden Jihad Syndrome." Besides, well-meaning peaceful individuals with 
Muslim names can easily be sidelined, intimidated and silenced by their more violent and ruthless 
co-religionists. Finally, from a straightforward reading of Islamic scriptures and history, militant 
Jihadists frequently have a better scriptural and theological backing for their views than the so- 
called moderates. In short, the question isn't whether there are moderate Muslims but whether there 
is a moderate Islam. The likely answer to this is no. 

There is talk about the prospects of an "Islamic Reformation." This primarily happens in the West, 
not in India, China or among Eastern Orthodox Christians because it reminds Westerners of the 
Protestant Reformation in sixteenth century Europe that split the Roman Catholic Church from 


Protestant reformers who refused to acknowledge the leadership of the Pope and criticized some of 
the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation triggered 
generations of regional turbulence in Europe; a hypothetical Islamic Reformation would likely 
cause generations of international turbulence, which is not an altogether pleasant scenario in a 
nuclear-armed world connected by intercontinental travel. 

Any comparison between Christianity and Islam only takes you so far. There is no centralized 
hierarchical structure in Islam to rebel against similar to the Vatican in the Roman Catholic Church, 
but that is not the most important difference. The question of whether or not Islam can be reformed 
hinges upon your definition of the term "reformation." Many Westerners implicitly envision 
something along the lines of "peaceful, non-sharia based with respect for individual choice and 
freedom of speech." In other words: "Reform" is vaguely taken to mean "less sharia and violent 
Jihad," although this is often implied and not explicitly spelled out. 

Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin called for a return to a Golden Age of pure, early 
Christianity. Although the Protestant Reformation was a turbulent period, it did pave the way for 
more religious freedom in Christian Europe in the long run. This was partly because Christians 
could return to the example, as contained in their Gospels, of an early age where the founder of their 
religion and his disciples led a largely peaceful movement separate from the state. Muslims, on the 
other hand, can find a similar example only in the Mecca period since in Medina, if you rely on 
traditional history, Muhammad became a ruler who wielded political as well as religious power and 
waged wars against those who disagreed with him. 

As long as the writings from the violent Medina period remain in force, any return to the "Golden 
Age" of early Islam will imply a return to intolerance, militant Islamic supremacism and Jihad 
violence. Some observers look for a "Muslim Martin Luther" who is expected to end the resurgent 
Jihad. But one could argue that we already have such a person: He's called Osama bin Laden. If 
"reform" is taken to mean a return to the historical period of the religious founder and his followers 
then it will inevitably lead to an upsurge in Jihadist violence, since that was what Muhammad and 
his companions actually did according to Islamic scriptures. 

Can there be such a thing as a reformed, moderate Islam in the sense of a creed whose followers and 
believers will: coexist peacefully and on equal terms with non-Muslims, without forcing their 
beliefs or rule on anybody; refrain from reacting violently to perceived criticisms or insults of their 
Prophet or Holy Book; accept that individual Muslims should be free to openly leave their Faith if 
they so desire; accept that religion is primarily a private matter that should not regulate all of 
society according to unequal and totalitarian sharia law? 

My bet is that such a version of Islam is unlikely to materialize and even less likely to succeed. I 
will now take a look at a few hypothetical ways in which this religion might be reformed and show 
why they probably won't achieve much success in the long run. Some of them already have been 
tried, but with only moderate success or among very marginal groups. 

One possible solution could be to restrain or cage Islam within a framework of rigidly enforced 
secularism. This kind of muscular secularism has been attempted under Mustafa Kemal Atatiirk 
{"Father of Turks," 1881-1938), military officer and autocratic founder of the Republic of Turkey, 
serving as its first president after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following the First World 
War. An admirer of the European Enlightenment, he sought to modernize his country by turning it 
into a secular nation-state and reducing the influence of Islam in Turkish political life as much as 
practically possible through a far-reaching program of political, economic and cultural reforms 
whose principles are commonly referred to as Kemalism. In 1924 he abolished the institution of the 
Caliphate. Although it had existed in name only for over a thousand years and was devoid of real 
power, it nevertheless served as a formal link with the first Caliphs after Muhammad's death and a 
symbol of (largely imaginary) Islamic unity. For this reason, millions of Muslims would like to 
recreate the Caliphate and restore it as a symbol of and vehicle for achieving Islamic global 


These reforms were partly successful, but they came at a price. Since Muslims are accustomed to 
venerating a particular person, Atatiirk created something of a cult surrounding his person that could 
have been considered "Fascist" in other times and places. Visitors to Turkey have described what 
might be called the competing personality cults of two individuals: Atatiirk and Muhammad. In the 
end, it appears as if Muhammad won this contest. 

Secular or not, Turkey has never been a beacon of tolerance. The rather few non-Muslims who have 
remained in the country face harassment, sometimes of a brutal nature. Serious riots broke out in 
Istanbul on September 6, 1955 which led to looting in Christian neighborhoods and the destruction 
of many of the city's churches and Jewish synagogues. More than 5,000 shops belonging to the 
Greek minority were looted by an emotional crowd of thousands of Turkish Muslim militants who 
carried out several "circumcisions" on the spot with knives. 

The one thousand year long Turkish Jihad against Greek-speaking Christians continued when the 
allegedly secular Turkey invaded the island of Cyprus in 1974, ethnically cleansing nearly 200,000 
Greek Cypriots from their homes and replacing them with Turks. During the last years of the 
Ottoman Empire in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Turkish Muslims repeatedly massacred 
Bulgarians, Serbs and other Christian subject peoples who were perceived to be disobedient 
dhimmis, culminating in the outright Jihad genocide of Armenian Christians. To this day, Turkish 
authorities flatly deny that there was any systematic effort at forcing Armenians out of eastern 
Anatolia. Turkey instead claims that hundreds of thousands of Turks were killed by Armenians. 
Talking about the Armenian Genocide is literally banned by law. 

In his article Green Money, Islamist Politics in Turkey, Michael Rubin in the Middle East Quarterly 
in 2005 warned against an ongoing re-Islamization of Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and 
Reconciliation Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, or AKP) swept to power in the parliamentary 
elections in 2002, aided by public disgust over corruption within long-feuding coalition parties but 
also by a substantial influx of Yesil Sermaye, "green money," from wealthy Arab businessmen and 
oil-rich Middle Eastern states. Erdogan was a popular mayor of Istanbul in 1994-98 and worked 
hard to avoid repeating former mistakes of speaking too overtly about his long-term goals of 
reestablishing the Islamic profile of Turkey. 

Prior to AKP's election victory, Erdogan's ally Abdullah Gill, who in 2007 became President of the 
Republic of Turkey despite opposition from secular forces, between 1983 and 1991 worked as a 
specialist at the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Islamic banks, especially those 
sponsored by the Saudis, have channeled billions of dollars to enterprises in Turkey and elsewhere. 
"The growth of the Islamic business sector is apparent across Turkey and appears intricately linked 
to the AKP's rise. A decade ago, rural and conservative Turks tended to inhabit poorer sections of 
town and shop in mom-and-pop stores or outdoor markets while wealthier and secular Turks spent 
their money in modern shops and Western-style supermarkets. Green money investment has caused 
the pattern to blur." 

According to a former member of the AKP, "Before the 2002 election, there were rumors that an 
AKP victory would lead to an infusion of $10-$20 billion, mostly from Saudi Arabia. It looks like 
the rumors came true." Wealthier countries such as Saudi Arabia and Malaysia have made their 
foreign aid to the AKP dependent on Turkey readjusting its position toward Israel. Turkey has since 
then become much more anti-Israeli, going from being something of a lukewarm ally to being a 
leader of Islamic hostility to the Jewish state. Turkish authorities have also taken a more active 
interest in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). 

As writer Michael Rubin concluded back in 2005, "Today, in private conversations in teahouses and 
in the National Assembly, many Turkish officials discuss green money and AKP financial opacity as 
the new threat. Money buys the short-term popularity necessary to initiate long-term changes, be 
they in Turkey's foreign or domestic policy. Under apparent Saudi influence, such changes will 
likely further erode Turkish secularism. If the AKP is able to translate money into power and power 
into money, then the main loser will be Turkish secularism. As an executive with one of Istanbul's 


largest firms said, 'The AKP is like a cancer. You feel fine, but then one day you start coughing 
blood. By the time you realize there's a problem, it's too far-gone.'" 

During their years in power, the AKP have systematically dismantled many key reforms dating back 
to Kemalism and have neutered dozens of generals and other officers of senior ranks within the 
Army, traditionally the guardians of Ataturk's legacy; the Army has intervened on a number of 
occasions in the past to uphold the secular nature of the state. 

An ugly Turkish nationalism with barely concealed neo-Ottoman undertones is on the rise. In 2005, 
the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf ("My Struggle") topped the bestseller list in Turkey, 
second only to a book about a Turkish national hero detonating a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C, 
the capital city of its NATO "ally," the USA. In return, both the Republican US President George W. 
Bush and his Democrat successor Barack Hussein Obama have openly pushed for full membership 
and access for nearly 80 million Turks to the European Union. So have several British Prime 
Ministers, including Tony Blair and David Cameron. 

Millions of Turks already live within the EU in countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and 
particularly Germany, which has a sizeable minority of Turkish descent. Turkish authorities are 
consciously trying to influence their behavior as well as voting patterns, thereby using them as a 
spearhead for Turkish Muslim influence in and colonization of Europe. The Turkish government 
in 2010 angered Turkish-German politicians by inviting them to an Istanbul conference and 
then urging them to resist social integration in their adopted homeland. Erdogan urged Turks 
living in foreign countries to take out citizenship of the new homelands — not to integrate, but rather 
to become more politically active, according to the website of the Germany's Der Spiegel, Europe's 
largest weekly magazine. Ali Ertan Toprak, deputy chairman of the Alevi community in Germany, 
told the news magazine that government representatives had said: "We have to inject European 
culture with Turkish." 

Participants told Spiegel that Erdogan repeated elements of his controversial speech in Germany in 
2008 in which he said: "Assimilation is a crime against humanity." The invitation to politicians and 
religious leaders of Turkish descent included lunch in a five-star hotel in Istanbul and offered to 
cover their travel costs. The title of the meeting was: "Wherever one of our countrymen is, we are 
there too." It was organized by Erdogan's reigning AKP. 

Prime Minister Erdogan has repeatedly suggested that "Islamophobia" is a crime against humanity 
and that there is no such thing as moderate Islam vs. radical Islam, there is only Islam. He has also 
stated that the goal of Turkish foreign policy is to "restore the might of the Ottoman Empire," 
something that will naturally cause concern among many Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, 
Croats, Armenians and other abused former Ottoman subjects. 

Srdja Trifkovic, the Serb American author of the excellent book Defeating Jihad : How the war on 
terror may yet be won, in spite of ourselves, warns against the rise of a neo-Ottoman Turkey . On 
March 9 2010, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia presented the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip 
Erdogan with the Wahhabist kingdom's most prestigious prize for his "services to Islam." Erdogan 
earned the King Faisal Prize for having "rendered outstanding service to Islam by defending the 
causes of the Islamic nation." As Mx.Trifkovic notes: 

"In August 2008 Ankara welcomed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a formal state visit, and last year 
[2009] it announced that it would not join any sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring 
nuclear weapons. In the same spirit the AKP government repeatedly played host to Sudan's 
President Omer Hassan al-Bashir — a nasty piece of jihadist work if there ever was one — who 
stands accused of genocide against non-Muslims. Erdogan has barred Israel from annual military 
exercises on Turkey's soil, but his government signed a military pact with Syria last October and has 
been conducting joint military exercises with the regime of Bashir al- Assad. Turkey's strident 
apologia of Hamas is more vehement than anything coming out of Cairo or Amman. (Talking of 
terrorists, Erdogan has stated, repeatedly, 'I do not want to see the word 'Islam' or 'Islamist' in 


connection with the word 'terrorism'!') simultaneous pressure to conform to Islam at home has 
gathered pace over the past seven years, and is now relentless. . . . Ankara's continuing bid to join 
the European Union is running parallel with its openly neo-Ottoman policy of re-establishing an 
autonomous sphere of influence in the Balkans and in the former Soviet Central Asian republics." 

There are currently serious cracks in the facade of Turkish secularism. We should remember that 
Iran, too, was perceived as being a moderate, modern country until a revolution brought the cleric 
and Jihadist terrorist sponsor Khomeini to power in 1979. The lesson we can draw from this is that 
Islam can lie dormant for generations, yet strike again with renewed vigor when the opportunity 
arises. Nearly a century after Atatiirk implemented sweeping reforms to curtail Islamic influences in 
Turkey, Islam is making a roaring comeback in his country. 

Kemalism never "cured" Islam; it could be likened to a drug treatment that held some symptoms of 
an illness temporarily in check, but as soon as the patient stopped taking the drugs the illness 
bounced back immediately. Kemalism kept Islam at bay for a while but never truly reformed it. If 
we stick with the analogy of caging a beast we can conclude that this strategy works only for as 
long as the beast is kept in chains and under close guard. Sooner or later, however, somebody like 
Erdogan may release it from its prison again. 

A few observers claim that certain branches of Shia Islam are supposedly more tolerant than Sunni 
Islam. Shia is short for shiat Ali, the partisans of Ali. Its followers will be referred to as Shias here, 
but they are often called Shiites or Shi'ites in English. Fatimah (ca. AD 605-633), the daughter of 
Muhammad from his first marriage to Khadijah, married Ali ibn Abi Talib (ca. AD 600-661), 
Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, the fourth Caliph of the Sunnis and the last of the Rashidun 
(the "rightly guided" Caliphs who knew Muhammad personally) as well as the first Imam of Shia 
Islam. Fatimah and Ali in turn became the parents of Hasan and Husayn, the male grandsons of 
Muhammad who, despite his many wives and concubines surprisingly didn't produce a single son 
who lived to adulthood. The Day of Ashura, the anniversary of Husayn ibn (son of) Ali's 
"martyrdom" at the Battle of Karbala in Iraq in AD 680, is a major and bloody festival and day of 
mourning for Shia Muslims around the world. 

Ali was one of the caliphs, "successors" to Muhammad as political leaders and "Commander of the 
Faithful" (but not divine messengers bringing additional revelations) following his death. They were 
Abu Bakr (rule AD 632-634), an early convert to Muhammad's cause who married his daughter 
Aisha, then Omar or Umar Ibn al-Khattab during whose rule from 634-644 Arab armies went 
beyond the Arabian Peninsula to conquer Mesopotamia, Syria and parts of Iran and Egypt, followed 
by Uthman ibn Affan from 644-656 and thereafter Ali. 

Shias believe that the Caliphate should pass down only through direct descendants of Muhammad 
via the marriage between Ali and Fatimah, the Ahl al-Bayt or "People of the House" [of the Prophet 
Muhammad]. The vast majority of modern Shias are "Twelvers" who recognize twelve spiritual 
leaders or Imams, the last of whom is currently believed to be in hiding but will eventually return. 
Iran is the stronghold of the Twelvers, but they also constitute the majority of the population in 
neighboring Iraq. There are sizeable Shia communities in the Yemen, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Lebanon, 
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and India. 

Yes, there are theological differences between Sunnis and Shias. These can be significant enough 
for Muslims themselves but for non-Muslims they are usually not important, apart from the 
possibility that ethnic and theological fissures between various groups of Muslims can be exploited 
by outsiders as a part of a "divide-and-rule" policy. Shias, too, want Islam to rule the world; 
advocate violent Jihad to achieve Islamic supremacy and have the same brutal discrimination of 
non-Muslims. To illustrate this we can think of the Ayatollah Khomeini (1900-1989), a senior Shia 
cleric who after the Iranian Revolution that saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 became 
the Supreme Leader of the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran. He was the ultimate political 
and religious authority in the country until his death. Since its inception, the IRI has been an 


extremely repressive state at home and a major sponsor of Jihad terrorism abroad. Shia Islam is not 
more peaceful than Sunni Islam, nor is it more tolerant, at least not if we're talking about Twelvers. 
The Ismailis are somewhat better. 

Ismailism is generally considered a branch of Shia Islam, the second largest sect of Shiaism but 
much smaller than the Twelvers. Aga Khan is the hereditary title of the Imam of the largest 
contemporary branch of Ismaili followers. The Ismailis were most active in medieval times through 
the Fatimids and the Qarmatians. Al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt, for centuries the highest center of 
religious learning for Sunnis worldwide, was ironically founded around AD 970 under the Shia 
Fatimid Dynasty. They ruled parts of North Africa and the Middle East from the tenth to twelfth 
centuries and claimed descent from Fatimah, hence the name. 

Combined, the adherents of the various branches of Shia Islam amount to less than fifteen percent 
of Muslims globally, the remaining 85-90% being Sunnis. This makes followers of Ismailism a 
minority of a minority whose international influence peaked a thousand years ago. Perhaps they are 
slightly more peaceful than the others and as such preferable, but they are also numerically marginal 
and therefore largely irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. 

Another community that is frequently put under the Shia label is the Alevi community in Turkey. 
They have several million followers, but their religious beliefs are so different from those of Sunnis 
and even mainstream Shias when it comes to prayer, pilgrimage, mosque attendance and other core 
Islamic practices that they are at the very fringes of the Islamic religion, perhaps outside of its 
boundaries according to some of their many Sunni critics. Alevis praise Ali beyond what 
mainstream Shias do, comparable to the Alawis or Alawitesin Syria who are viewed with hostility 
by many Sunni Muslims. The Alevis and the Alawis are most likely too numerically marginal to 
become a dominant force any time soon, if ever. 

The Druze make up a small sect that historically began as an offshoot of Ismaili Islam and whose 
close-knit communities number a few hundred thousand followers, primarily in the Levant (Syria, 
Lebanon, Israel and Jordan). Yet their beliefs are so distinct from those of other Muslims that, while 
Arabic-speaking, they are often classified as a separate religious group. Uniquely, the Druze in 
Israel participate in active military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) alongside Jews, 
something which no Muslim community there has ever done. 

My view is that as long as you start out with the texts used by orthodox Muslims — the Koran, the 
hadith and the Sira — it is more or less impossible to come up with a peaceful version of Islam. In 
principle it might be possible to change things by either adding more religious texts or by ignoring 
some of those that already exist. Both options are problematic, though. 

There are the "Koran only" Muslims, who currently constitute an extremely small group of people. 
They advocate that Muslims should ignore the hadith and the Sira and rely solely on the Koran for 
guidance. Hadith might be translated as "narrative" or "report" (plural: ahadith, often simply called 
hadiths in English). They are narrations concerning the words and deeds of Muhammad and his 
companions, collectively creating a biography of his life. This is important as Muhammad is treated 
as the "living Koran" whose words and deeds, his Sunna, are considered authoritative and an 
important source of law for traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence. While a very large number 
of presumably fabricated hadith were in circulation by the year 800, something Muslims freely 
admit, Islamic legal scholars tried to sort out more reliable collections dubbed sahih ("true" or 
"valid"). The two most highly respected collections of the six primary ones used by Sunnis are those 
gathered by Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Both of them worked in the mid-800s AD, in other 
words more than two centuries after Muhammad is supposed to have died. Shias have their own 
hadith collections. 

A major practical problem with the "Koran only" approach is that a great deal of information 
regarding traditional doctrines, including practices related to prayer, pilgrimage and the Five Pillars, 
are contained exclusively or primarily in extra-Koranic material such as the hadith and are not 


elaborated upon in any great detail in the Koran. The Koran itself refers to following the example of 
the Prophet, and that example is to a large extent explained in the hadith literature. Islam as we 
know it just wouldn't make sense theologically without the hadith. 

Moreover, an anti-hadith program would be extremely hard to implement in practice. Traditional 
sharia law carries the death penalty for apostates, and those who formally choose to ignore the 
hadith literature can easily be classified and treated as such by orthodox Muslims. Besides, if you 
remove the hadith literature this will take away some of the most aggressive and violent texts and 
examples, but the Koran itself has dozens of verses containing hatred for infidels or advocating 
Jihad, including violent struggle, against non-Muslims to impose Islamic rule on them. It would 
therefore at best provide a partial solution. 

As we have seen, the major hadith collections were gathered a long time after Muhammad and all 
those who knew him were dead, assuming here that Muhammad as he appears from Islamic sources 
was an historical person who lived in present-day Mecca and Medina. There are scholars who 
dispute this, too. We should remember that although it is perfectly possible to question the historical 
authenticity of many hadith, the same could be said about parts of the Koran as well. It is very 
difficult and artificial for an objective scholar to claim that "we cannot trust any of the hadith, but 
the Koran is perfect and can be relied upon." The Koran itself came into existence during a 
prolonged historical process taking many generations. 

All things considered it is highly unlikely whether you could get the majority of the world's 
Muslims to permanently abandon the hadith literature. Even if you managed to achieve this it would 
merely remove some of the intolerant texts, not the dozens of Jihad verses found in the Koran itself. 
The Koran-only approach to Islamic reform is therefore fundamentally flawed. 

An even more radical approach would be to ignore the chapters identified with the Medina period 
and focus on the chapters of the Koran allegedly revealed in Mecca. This would reverse the 
standard doctrine of abrogation, which stipulates that if there is a conflict between two different 
Koranic verses then the verse that was revealed last takes priority. This creates a massive headache 
for champions of a "moderate" Islam because nearly all of the somewhat more tolerant verses and 
chapters in the Koran are identified with the Mecca period or shortly after the Hijra, the flight or 
migration of Muhammad and his earliest followers from Mecca to the city of Yathrib (Medina) in 
AD 622, which is the year when the Islamic calendar begins. 

As soon as he was established in Medina, Muhammad became the political leader of an expanding 
group of people who conducted raiding parties/armed robberies against their opponents. As a 
consequence, the revelations became progressively more aggressive and violent, cancelling out 
earlier ones. The traditional interpretation is that the tolerance of Mecca was only because 
Muhammad and his followers then lacked the strength to intimidate their opponents into submission 
by brute force. In other words: The Meccan revelations constitute a special case, the Medinan 
revelations the general case of Islamic behavior. 

At least one person in the 1960s and 70s argued that this principle of abrogation should be reversed, 
that the Mecca period constitutes the general case of Islamic behavior and the "true Islam." This 
was the Sudanese Muslim writer Mahmud Muhammud Taha. Taha suggested that the violence of 
the Medina era was because their non-Muslim opponents at that point in time weren't "mature" 
enough to adopt Islam peacefully and therefore had to be forced to do so, for their own good. Yet in 
our time, people are supposedly mature enough to recognize Islam as the One True Faith and adopt 
it voluntarily, hence violence is no longer required. 

This sounds fine on paper, until you analyze the details of his arguments and discover that he 
retained the option of using violence against those "immature" individuals and peoples who do not 
quietly submit to Islam, which amounts to a highly traditional view of Jihad. The sword should be 
used as a "surgical tool" to cut them off from the body of society. He supported the idea of slavery 
on a moral basis today, not just as an historical fact. "Freedom" is identical with sharia and being a 


slave of Allah. Taha also approved of many of the most appalling aspects of sharia law, such as 
stoning people to death for adultery and whipping those who enjoy a glass of wine. Yet although 
Taha's ideas fell far short of what is needed, he was nevertheless considered so controversial that he 
was executed in his native Sudan in 1985 as an apostate, an adult person who has willfully left the 
fold of Islam. His example perfectly illustrates the tremendous obstacles and dangers any potential 
Muslim reformer has to face. 

Certain radical scholars such as the German linguist Christoph Luxenberg have suggested that parts 
of the Koran, especially some of the Meccan chapters, were originally based on pre-Islamic 
Christian texts written in Syriac or Syro-Aramaic, a Semitic language related to Classical Arabic. 
Not all critical scholars agree with this hypothesis, but if you take this line of thought seriously then 
it would fatally undermine the arguments presented by Mahmud Muhammud Taha because it would 
imply that the most peaceful and tolerant chapters of the Koran, the Meccan suras, are peaceful and 
tolerant in part because they are based on Christian texts. The much more violent Medinan chapters 
that were inspired by Muhammad and his companions, whoever they really were, are the most 
authentically Islamic, the "true Islam." 

As these examples demonstrate, reforming Islam by removing or ignoring some of the established 
texts is very difficult to achieve. Could it be possible to do the reverse, and soften the traditional 
texts by adding new material to supplement and dilute older texts rather than removing them? In 
theory, this might be possible. It has already been tried in real life. However, any such attempts will 
immediately run into powerful opposition from orthodox Muslims who hold that Muhammad was 
the "Seal of the Prophets" who brought the final revelations from Allah for all eternity to mankind 
in the form of the Koran. This implies that those who claim to bring new teachings to supplement 
the Koran will be viewed as imposters. 

One personal story illustrating this dilemma is provided by that of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (ca.1839- 
1908), who was born in Qadian in Punjab in northwest India. He founded the so-called Ahmadiyya 
movement in 1889 and professed to be a divinely guided reformer and the Mahdi, a messianic 
figure expected by many (but not all) Muslims to appear before the Day of Judgment, the end of the 
world as we know it, to rid the Earth of wrongdoing and injustice. 

Ghulam Ahmad authored dozens of books and reinterpreted Islam in an entirely new fashion, with 
far less emphasis on violent Jihad. Yet because of the teachings he added and the divinely inspired 
mission he claimed for himself most Muslims viewed him as a false prophet. His followers are 
considered non-Muslims in countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and are relentlessly 
persecuted even in a "moderate" Muslim majority country such as Indonesia. 

The physicist Mohammad Abdus Salam (1926-1996) was born in then British-ruled India, present- 
day Pakistan. He received part of his education at the University of Cambridge in England and was 
awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 for contributions to the theory of unified weak and 
electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, making him one of very few individuals 
from a Muslim background to win a science Nobel and the only one so far to win in arguably the 
most prestigious category, that of physics. Ahmadis don't count as "proper" Muslims, except if they 
do something great like winning a Nobel Prize, and barely even then. To make matters worse, he 
shared his Prize with two Jews, the physicists Sheldon Lee Glashow (born 1932) and Steven 
Weinberg (born 1933) from the USA. 

He contributed to Pakistan's nuclear program, but members of the Ahmadiyya community have 
been physically and legally harassed in Pakistan and charged with being unbelievers "impersonating 
Muslims." The word "Muslim" has been erased from an epitaph engraved on the tomb of Abdus 
Salam, which used to read "the First Muslim Nobel Laureate." 

The Baha'i Faith is a monotheistic religion with several million believers. It was born in the 
nineteenth century and sees itself as the continuation of the world's major religions, not just Islam. 
Ali Muhammad Shirazi (1819-1850) from Shiraz, Iran at the age of 24 announced himself a 


messenger of God, rejected violence and holy war (Jihad), recognized the equality of women and 
took the title the Bab ("Gate"). He wrote numerous letters and books that combined constituted a 
new religious law. His followers were tortured and killed and he himself was executed in a public 
square in the city of Tabriz. His remains were eventually brought to a tomb on Mount Carmel in the 
city Haifa in present-day northern Israel. 

Mirza Husayn AH Nuri (1817-1892) from Iran, later known as Baha'u'llah ("Glory of God") to his 
followers, announced his claim to a divine mission to the followers of the Bab. Those who accepted 
this became the first members of the Baha'i Faith. The Turkish Sultan banished him to Akko, where 
he lived for many years. His remains were buried in a small building there known as the Shrine of 
Baha'u'llah. The scenic Baha'i Gardens in Haifa and Akko have become popular sites for visitors. 
Baha'u'llah claimed to be the latest in a series of religious messengers to mankind from an almighty 
and omnipresent God, the previous of whom included such figures as Abraham, the Buddha, Jesus 
and Muhammad. Yet this view cannot be reconciled with the Islamic doctrine of Muhammad being 
the final Messenger of Allah. 

Baha'is are without question more peaceful than most Muslims, but can they be considered 
Muslims? From an outsiders point of view, it could be said with considerable justification that 
although it claims to have a connection with previous religions, among them Islam, the Baha'i Faith 
amounted to a totally new religion, complete with a set of canonical texts: the writings of the Bab 
and Baha'u'llah. Whereas Ahmadis are treated with suspicion they consider themselves Muslims and 
are normally referred to as a rather unorthodox Muslim community. 

By contrast, Baha'is are generally referred to as a separate faith by both themselves and others. They 
went as far as changing the direction of prayers from Mecca to the Shrine of Baha'u'llah in Israel 
where their Prophet-Founder was buried. They are therefore viewed as apostates by virtually all 
Muslims, Shias and Sunnis alike, and are ruthlessly persecuted nearly everywhere in the allegedly 
tolerant Islamic world while they can openly practice their religion undisturbed among the Jews in 
the supposedly evil, oppressive state of Israel. 

You can find what might be termed lax Islam or diluted Islam, yet this is not quite the same as a 
"moderate Islam," despite what some observers like to think. "Lax Islam" is when its believers don't 
formally change anything in the core religious texts, but simply choose to deemphasize them and be 
relaxed in implementing their teachings in real life. Many Sufis could fit into this category since 
they focus more in the supposedly inner, spiritual side of religion and less on outwardly following 
its legalistic details. Yet precisely for this reason, Sufis are often treated with corresponding 
suspicion by stricter Islamic scholars. Sufism has existed for over a thousand years, but it still hasn't 
managed to create a tolerant Islamic world. 

Besides, lax Islam will only provide non-Muslims with a temporary respite, not a lasting antidote to 
violent Jihad, since the core texts continue to exist. Sooner or later, somebody will come along who 
takes Islamic written texts seriously and decides to implement them. The Mughal Emperor Akbar 
the Great (1542-1605) in India was a relatively tolerant ruler for his time because he didn't follow 
Islamic teachings, but then he was succeeded by Aurangzeb (1618-1707), a pious and serious 
Muslim who followed Islamic teachings and for that reason was extremely brutal when dealing with 
Hindus and other non-Muslims within his Empire. 

Diluted Islam could be defined as societies where Islam was recently established and is therefore 
extensively mixed up with preexisting, un-Islamic practices. This is often cited by those who 
profess their hope in a "regional" and supposedly more tolerant version of Islam somewhere in the 
Balkans, Africa, India or Southeast Asia. Those who support this hypothesis typically state that 
Islam is not monolithic, but this becomes less and less true year by year thanks to rapid global 
communications. Pakistan has virtually wiped out its non-Muslim communities through relentless 
persecution and is a major sponsor of Jihad terrorism abroad. "Pakistani" or "Indian" Islam appears 
strikingly similar to Middle Eastern Islam or "desert Islam," as the self-proclaimed reformist Irshad 
Manji has been known to talk about. 


It is true that Muslims in parts of Indonesia have traditionally been less violent than Arab Muslims 
in the Middle East, but they are more recently converted peoples. The regional differences shrink 
continuously in our age of globalization as Islam becomes firmly established locally, as believers 
travel for pilgrimage to Mecca and as local groups get sponsored by Saudi Arabian oil money If 
you look at Southeast Asia as a whole, Muslims kill thousands of non-Muslims in regions where 
they are a sizable minority, for instance in southern Thailand or the Philippines. In allegedly 
"moderate" Indonesia they have destroyed hundreds of Christian churches. Much the same goes for 
the Balkans in Southeast Europe. 

In the city-state of Singapore, the Muslim minority benefits from the economic affluence generated 
by the predominately Chinese non-Muslim majority, but they can still cause problems and are kept 
under close control in a somewhat authoritarian society. Malaysia has been a moderate economic 
success story mainly because Muslims became a demographic majority not too long ago. 
Discrimination against non-Muslims is increasing there now. 

All things considered, empirical evidence from different continents strongly suggests a common 
pattern wherein Muslims create repression where they constitute the majority and violent unrest 
where they constitute the minority. This happens regardless of the ethnic and racial composition of 
the local population. The only common factor is Islam and the violent supremacist teachings 
contained in the central texts of this religion. As long as these texts remain unchanged and in force, 
so will Muslim violence against non-Muslims everywhere. 

This leaves another hypothetical possibility for significant change of Islam: That a major armed 
confrontation with groups of non-Muslims results in such a crushing defeat that it totally shatters 
the confidence Muslims have in the supremacy of their Faith and their Umma. A Jewish gentleman 
once pointed out to me that when Roman forces destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the earthly 
center of Judaism, Jewish scriptures didn't change per se but were reinterpreted to fit a new situation 
in the diaspora, as Jews were scattered in different corners of the world. An equivalent to this in 
Islam would be the destruction of the major mosques in Mecca and Medina. This analogy is 
imperfect because Judaism has never advocated world conquest and does not exist as a vehicle for 
achieving global military dominance. Islam does. 

Given that Muslims are currently engaged in open conflicts with most of the global centers of 
power at the same time, and given that many non-Muslims from North America via Western 
Europe, Israel, Russia and India to China have nuclear weapons, the destruction of Mecca in the 
course of the twenty- first century should be treated as a real possibility. What kind of effect such an 
event would have on the Islamic psyche is hard to predict. Perhaps it would shatter Islam 
completely because the Islamic mentality is based on dominance and supremacy; perhaps it would 
create a tidal wave of Muslim anger and global Jihad. It is said that those who live by the sword will 
also die by it. Islam has certainly lived by the sword. Perhaps the creed will exit world history just 
as it entered: With a great burst of violence. 

To sum up, it is very difficult to see how Islam, based on its existing texts, can be changed into 
something that is peaceful enough to be satisfactory from a non-Muslim point of view. It is a highly 
unpleasant thought that a religion with over a billion adherents worldwide is inherently violent and 
incompatible with a modern society. It is understandable that some observers dislike this idea so 
much that they create an illusory reality where this isn't the case, but an honest, straightforward 
reading of Islamic texts leaves us with few other conclusions. 

What, then, is to be done? In the short run, damage control. Islam needs to be caged and restrained 
as much as practically possible and Muslim Jihadists must be deprived of the financial and 
technological resources to harm us. Wherever possible, non-Muslims should seek to physically 
separate themselves from Muslims. In the long run, one can only hope that Islam will be broken by 
its confrontation with modernity before it forces mankind into a massive confrontation that could 
cause tremendous human suffering before the dust settles. 


Swedish absurdity 

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 

When it comes to taking cultural Marxism and "gender neutrality" to its logical conclusion, you just 
can't beat the Swedes : 

Transgendered people need more protection, the Liberal Party has announced, adding it 
proposes that the hate crime law be clarified so that it is clear that it also applies to this 

A previous sample from Gates of Vienna : 

Meet Pop, a two-and-a-half-year-old Swedish child whose parents are refusing to say 
whether the apple of their eye is a boy or a girl. Pop's parents, both 24, made a decision 
when their baby was born to keep Pop's sex a secret. Aside from a select few — those 
who have changed the child's diaper — nobody knows Pop's gender; if anyone 
enquires, Pop's parents simply say they don't disclose this information. In an interview 
with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their 
decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction. 

And from the Brussels Journal: 

The Swedish Green Party state explicitly that the concepts male and female are 
"socially constructed" and forced upon all human beings. In order to reach the new 
world order, it is paramount that all such artificial identities are broken down. This 
should be facilitated by the education system and specially trained teachers. They 
believe that "all human beings" should be free to choose whatever name they desire. By 
this they appear to mean "gender" as well. They want everything to be "gender neutral," 
not only marriage ceremonies but identity cards. 


A few reasons for cautious optimism 

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 

In his article Dreaming of a Culture War , Paul E. Gottfried at the website Alternative Right 
criticizes my essay Thilo Sarrazin vs. the Ruling Multicultural Oligarchs , which he claims is "full 
of dubious assumptions." He states that "'democracies,' and particularly the ones that look after 
their 'citizens' with tax monies and custodial oversight of behavior, generate widespread loyalty 
because of their uninhibited paternalism and because the people are made to believe they consent to 
having their brains laundered. This is a political success story unparalleled in human history." 
Furthermore, "While [FjordmanJ's into happy talk, I'm trying to understand why the current 
oligarchs have done so well for so long. And I find absolutely no evidence that their string of 
successes will not continue into the indefinite future." 

I agree that far too many Westerners stubbornly keep voting for bad political parties. I was 
personally disappointed during the previous parliamentary elections in Britain, when rather few 
citizens voted for real alternatives such as the BNP or the UKIP and instead supported the three 
established left-wing parties. And yes, I consider the Tories to constitute a centrist or center-left 
party today. It is unfortunately true that many of the establishment so-called "conservatives," from 
Merkel via Sarkozy to George W. Bush, are little better than the left-wing parties. This exposes 
serious flaws in the democratic system. Apart from that, I disagree with most of the assumptions 
Mr. Gottfried makes and I believe his conclusions are incorrect. 

Ordinary Westerners are indeed guilty of not putting up enough resistance to the ongoing 
Multicultural destruction of the West, but they are not the driving force behind it. The common 
people are divided, but with a large and rapidly increasing percentage of them rejecting the anti- 
Western Multicultural propaganda of the ruling elites. The ruling elites — or perhaps we should call 
them oligarchs since "elites" is how they view themselves — are still almost uniformly behind the 
deliberate program of flooding the West with mass immigration to demographically and culturally 
transform Western countries. Dissenters from this policy are branded as heretics and formally 
expelled from their ranks, as is happening to Sarrazin. 

This is uncontroversial as far as I am concerned. The 
interesting question is why the ruling elites are doing this, and 
what they hope to gain from their destructive policies. My bet 
is that many of the Leftists are informed by a Marxist 
understanding in which the West is the evil inventor of 
capitalism that needs to be destroyed for its sins to pave the 
way for a just world order. The Big Business supporters simply 
want unrestricted access to markets, raw materials and workers 
and feel less and less loyalty to any specific nation. In general, 
all the elites, not just the Leftists but the centrists and large segments of the "establishment Right," 
believe that dismantling Western nation-states is necessary because functioning nation-states 
constitute an obstacle to a Globalist world order. Also, it is quite possible that some of the oligarchs 
suffer from "Third World envy" and want to turn the West into a giant Mexico, where the wealthy 
elites lord over a vast sea of serfs and with no significant middle class to challenge their rule. 

While the Multicultural oligarchs remain in control, they are less firmly so now than they were a 
few years ago. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that they are scared, some of them 
might be getting a little nervous. Despite having near- total control over the propaganda flow in the 
form of the mass media, they find it increasingly hard to convince the common people that being 


mugged in previously safe cities is "enriching," that importing dysfunctional Third World tribes is 
"good for the economy" or that Islam is a "religion of peace." A critical mass of ordinary 
individuals in the West currently know that they are being lied to on a daily basis and that they have 
been deceived by their own leaders for decades. 

Even the nuclear weapon in the Multicultural arsenal, the "racism" card, is not as intimidating as it 
used to be, especially since rapid advances in genetics are making it clear that there likely is a 
genetic component to intelligence. White Westerners are sick and tired of being abused and 
dispossessed second-rate citizens in their own countries, of being the subject of constant ridicule 
and unfair demonization and above all of being the only peoples on the planet who do not have the 
right to preserve their culture and heritage, despite the fact that they have created the most dynamic 
and innovate civilization that has ever existed in the history of mankind. 

A rising tide of white anger is one of the most significant political developments in the Western 
world today. This change is real, not imaginary. In September this year the Sweden Democrats, 
operating under appallingly repressive conditions in what is probably the most totalitarian country 
in the Western world, were swept into the Swedish parliament. I have noticed when talking to 
random people that many of the subjects that I write about which were considered highly 
controversial only five years ago are finding more acceptance. 

This movement is gradual, but for the first time in generations it is going in the right direction. I 
choose to see the cup as half full in this case rather than remain a grumpy professional pessimist. 
Also, as Islam is becoming increasingly unpopular among the masses, so too will its apologists in 
the West become. If all of your enemies are in the same boat this potentially makes it possible to hit 
all of them with the same torpedo, figuratively speaking. 

Does this mean that I think we have won? Of course it doesn't. We have tremendous challenges 
ahead of us. I'm merely saying that something resembling a genuine opposition is finally emerging. 
It is not sufficiently organized and it needs guidance, but let us then focus on how to provide that 
guidance. The opposition movement has potential, especially if the economy keeps deteriorating in 
the near future, which is a very real possibility. If Mr. Gottfried has failed to notice the rising 
popular resentment against the lying Multicultural oligarchs then I fear that he no longer 
understands what is going on in his own civilization. 


Book review: "The perils of diversity" 

Tuesday, December 07, 2010 

Inspired by Eurabia by Bat Ye 'or, the only book to appear in print so far based on my material is 
Defeating Eurabia , part of which is available online in German . For Scandinavian readers, I have 
contributed a chapter in Norwegian to the book Selvmordsparadigmet ("The Suicide Paradigm"), 
published in 2010 by Ole J. Anfindsen, who runs the website Honest Thinking . Anfindsen believes 
that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide, and that the ruling ideology after the 
Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. His main emphasis is not on 
Islam but on Politically Correct censorship and the Multiculturalism of Western oligarchs. The same 
is true of my contribution to his book. 

The following quotes with page references are taken from the recent book The Perils of Diversity : 
Immigration and Human Nature by Byron M. Roth, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology from the 
USA. [For the conservative who has everything, this would make an excellent Christmas gift. — 
Dymphna] He argues that the debate over immigration policy in the Western world is critically 
uninformed by the sciences of evolutionary biology and psychology. In his work he examines the 
intersection between culture, genetics, IQ and society. Prominent among the fundamental features 
of human nature is a natural bias toward one's own kind, making harmony in multi-ethnic societies 
problematic at best. All historical evidence indicates that 
"diversity" is not a strength, and that blood is thicker than water. 
Ignoring such biological realities leads to failed social 
experiments that may cause great human suffering. 



Roth addresses the disturbingly undemocratic nature of the regime 
of mass immigration imposed by authorities on the citizens of all 
Western nations in defiance of their expressed wishes, and shows 
that the chasm between elite views and public opinion is so deep 
that current policies can only be maintained by an increasingly 
totalitarian suppression of dissent. 


Si/njn M. Rvlli 

There is a consensus of opinion accepted by the vast majority of 

leaders in business, industry and academia. Billionaire George 

Soros has established and funded the Open Society Institute (OSI), 

which operates over thirty branches worldwide and promotes 

Multiculturalism. Soros was also a major financial backer of Barack Obama for US President. There 

are numerous organizations, academic programs, religious groups and labor organizations that 

support our current immigration policies. Many business and industry organizations spend vast 

sums in lobbying efforts to oppose any limitation of immigration, legal or illegal. Combined, these 

groups have created a convergence of opinion among Western elites, a consensus that popular 

resistance to mass immigration is caused by ignorant xenophobia that should be ignored in setting 

public policy. Opposing all these powerful forces are the average citizens of all Western countries. 

Francis Fukuyama explains that "Postmodern elites, particularly in Europe, feel that they have 
evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place." 
Esteemed English philosopher Roger Scruton observes that such elites dominate European national 
parliaments and the bureaucracy of the European Union. A typical member of this elite class 
repudiates national loyalties, defines his goals and ideals against his own nation and sees himself 
"as a defender of enlightened universalism" against local chauvinism. 


Byron M. Roth, page 52: 

"Not surprisingly, the multicultural program these elites promote is, by its very nature, 
profoundly undemocratic, in that it imposes changes on society that citizens most 
assuredly do not want and which they resist when given the opportunity to do so. Hence 
the extraordinary repression of dissent in the immigration debate and the totalitarian 
imposition of political correctness wherever elites have power, such as in American 
universities and in most European political parties. Nobel Prize winning novelist Doris 
Lessing, no enemy of the left, argued in a 1992 article that political correctness is 
'immediately evident as a legacy of Communism. . . a continuation of that old bully, the 
Party line.' She argues: 'millions of people, the rug of Communism pulled out from 
under them, are searching frantically, and perhaps not even knowing it, for another 
dogma.' They are rabble-rousers are using the 'most dirty and often cruel tactics' and 
are 'no less rabble-rousers because they see themselves as anti-racists or feminists or 
whatever.' It is difficult to disagree with Lessing that the totalitarian methods and 
Utopian ambitions of multiculturalism clearly have their roots in Communist ideology. 
The multicultural program is, to be sure, spectacularly Utopian." 

The ruling oligarchs of the West seem unwilling to ask what the consequences will be if their vision 
is flawed. Many left-leaning Western intellectuals defended the barbarities of Communism for years 
because they viewed its end goals as noble. The same intellectuals now excuse the excesses of their 
governments in promoting large-scale immigration. After all, the goal of world harmony and 
universal justice is as noble as the goal of economic equality. 

Page 53: 

"Many today call the tactics of European multiculturalists a 'soft' totalitarianism. 
However, the willingness of governments to put people in jail or deprive them of their 
livelihoods for disagreeing with government policies can hardly be characterized as soft. 
It should be recalled that in its last years, the Soviet Union rarely murdered opponents, 
but used tactics similar to the ones being used today in Europe. A world without borders 
would be one without refuge from despotic rule. Despotic governance was the rule 
throughout most of recorded history, and it is still the rule for the majority of the world's 
citizens. . . Whether people would be better off without independent nation states, living 
under the rule of a world government, or in large supernational blocs such as the EU is 
by no means clear. In fact, history and reason suggest that just the opposite would be the 
case. Most Utopian dreams when implemented have, in fact, been real-life nightmares 
for the vast majority. One is hard-pressed to think of an exception." 

Serge Trifkovic, the Serbian-American author of the book Defeating Jihad : How the War on 
Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves, agrees with this analysis. The ruling elite insist that 
Western countries belong to the whole world and that our societies should be "colorblind." These 
ideas have become tools of European demographic suicide. "No other race subscribes to these 
moral principles," Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, "because they are weapons of self- 
annihilation." The permitted consensus opinion promotes de facto open borders. The West is 
hamstrung by guilt-ridden haters and appeasers "whose hold on the political power, the media, and 
the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene." Trifkovic describes the "treason" of the elite 
class or traitor class, who despite their self-image as enlightened and rational are rootless, arrogant 
and cynically manipulative fifth columnists: 

" By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the 
United States may not exist 'in its current form' in the 21st century, because the very 


concept of nationhood — here and throughout the world — will have been rendered 
obsolete... The ideological foundation for Talbott's beliefs was stated bluntly: 'All 
countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing 
circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one 
time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary' To the members of his class, all 
countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any 
one of them is irrational, and risking one's life for its sake is absurd. The refusal of the 
Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest 
betrayal in history. . . Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations 
more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all 
others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global 
and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil." 

Roth again, page 439: 

"The elimination of border and passport checks 

within Europe meant that EU residents and 

authorized visitors could freely move between EU 

countries unimpeded. But it also meant that illegal 

entrants could also move about without hindrance. 

This meant that securing the external borders of the 

EU was critical for immigration and security 

purposes. However, the EU member states have not 

agreed on EU-wide measures to do so. As a 

consequence, countries bordering on the Mediterranean — and especially those with 

island possessions close to Africa, such as Spain and Italy — became magnets for 

African migrants seeking illegal entrance into the EU. Once a migrant gains access to an 

island of an EU nation, he cannot be simply sent home, but has to be individually 

processed for deportation, a time-consuming and costly process. In many cases 

individuals simply leave shelters and detention centers and spread out into the 

countryside, and many travel to the mainland of other European states." 

Byron M. Roth further believes (page 31) that "Immigration policy is remarkably similar in all 
Western countries in its encouragement of large-scale Third- World immigration, while at the same 
time, in all countries, the native population, by wide majorities, opposes those policies." He speaks 
about a convergence of the so-called political Left and Right when it comes to promoting non- 
European mass immigration, which has essentially crippled the democratic system and rendered it 
nearly meaningless in these and other crucial issues. Those on the Left are international Socialists 
while those on the Right channel the business lobby, with its desire for unlimited access to markets 
as well as cheap labor. These two groups, allegedly adversaries, are in fact allies in the project of 
breaking down Western nation-states. 

Page 38: 

"In the case of the doctrine of multiculturalism and mass immigration, however, the 
political leaders of both the left and the right, and virtually all academicians, are 
unanimous in their support. The consequence is that the members of the general public, 
who are most affected by immigration, have no parties to represent their interests and 
are left with a powerful sense of disenfranchisement for the simple reason that on issues 
of immigration they are, in fact, disenfranchised. A case in point is the 2008 United 
States Presidential elections, where both nominees favored even more liberalized 


immigration policies than those then in existence, and this in spite of the overwhelming 
opposition to these policies by the electorate." 

He claims (page 440) that "On both sides of the Atlantic, public officials, no matter what they say to 
their electorates, are quite simply unwilling to stem the flow of immigration. That the vast majority 
of EU citizens oppose this massive migration seems beside the point. As Craig Parsons and Timothy 
Smeeding aptly put it, this result was the product of 'non-majoritarian institutions — constitutional 
guarantees of human rights and courts — that protected this movement against restrictions by 
elected officials.' But this begs the question why the elected officials of all European countries who, 
after all, design and implement EU policies and who still control the scope of the EU, have 
acquiesced in these widely unpopular developments. Given the above findings and the data dealing 
with education, employment, welfare dependency, and crime, it is hardly surprising that large 
majorities of Europeans have grave misgivings about the current level of immigration from Third 
World countries. Migration Watch, a United Kingdom policy think tank, commissioned a poll 
conducted in 2007 by the international organization YouGov to sample the attitudes of the British 
Public. Overall, 81% thought immigration should be substantially reduced, with 57% agreeing 
'strongly' and 24% tending to agree. Only 14% disagreed." 

The gap between rich and poor in the USA is wider than ever and the middle class is slowly 
disappearing. While 90 percent of Americans have seen only modest gains in their incomes since 
1973, incomes have almost tripled for people at the upper end of the scale. In 1979, one third of the 
profits the country produced went to the richest 1 percent of society. In 2010 it was almost 60 
percent. In 1950, the average corporate CEO earned 30 times as much as an ordinary worker. Sixty 
years later it was 300 times as much. These figures indicate that the wealthy elites are not being 
irrational. So far, globalization has indeed been beneficial — for them personally in the short run, 
but not necessarily for the country as a whole in the long run. 

As I've indicated before, there is only one major party in the West today: the Transnational Post- 
European Party for Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration. You retain, for the time being, the 
privilege of voting for who should be its figurehead at any given moment, but you do not get to 
have a say about which policy the Party should follow. That is reserved for the oligarchs. The 
peasants — that means you — can be distracted by breasts, football and reality TV. Those who still 
protest can be labeled "Nazis" and dragged in front of a court of law. The establishment Right is 
little different from the Left, rendering these terms nearly meaningless. 

All Leftist parties are in favor of dismantling the West in its traditional form; Socialists have always 
been opposed to nation-states. Whatever opposition there is can be found on the political Right, but 
it is fragmented, and those who pose a genuine challenge to the oligarchs and the status quo will be 
ruthlessly demonized; assassinated like Pirn Fortuyn in the Netherlands, put on trial like Geert 
Wilders, banned by law as was the Vlaams Blok when it was the largest party in Belgium, or 
assaulted in their private homes by thugs with the quiet approval of the authorities, as is the case 
with the Sweden Democrats. Individuals are legally prosecuted for telling the truth about Third 
World immigration in general and Islamic immigration in particular, among them Jussi Halla-aho in 
Finland and Elisabeth Sabaditsch- Wolff in Austria. All of this takes place in the supposedly "free 
and democratic West." 

The modern West has become an ideological dictatorship, a "one-idea society" where a self- 
appointed elite of Multicultural oligarchs impose censorship from above. The same basic 
mechanisms exist in North America, too, but they have become formalized in the EU. I would 
personally estimate that "the Left" in the widest possible sense is the cause of 65% of our current 
troubles. The "Right," including its Big Business backers, is responsible for 30% through their 
support of globalization and mass immigration, and an additional 5% just for general cowardice and 


uselessness in confronting Leftist aggression. 

Neither side of the spectrum views a nation as an organic unit of related people with a shared 
history, mythology and mentality Marxists want to get rid of all nation-states, starting with Western 
ones. Big Business interests see the nation-state as no different from a multinational corporation, a 
tool for maximizing short-term profits, where one employs people to do a job for a limited period of 
time, and after that leave them to their own devices. Those Europeans who view their nation as a 
natural unit of historically and biologically related people are branded "right-wing extremists" by 
both these groups, who together largely control Western politics. Nobody supports the interests of 
the white middle class, who are being bled dry financially. 

Western oligarchs reacted in the same manner to the democratic rejection of minarets in 
Switzerland: They immediately, from Washington to London, attacked the Swiss and issued thinly 
veiled threats, apparently fearful that "dangerous" ideas might spread to their own countries. We 
often hear talk about "cultural suicide," but in this case the Swiss people clearly did not want to 
commit national suicide; the transnational Western Multicultural elite wanted to force them to do so. 
This Globalist agenda is deliberate and well-organized, not accidental. 

Mass immigration is being forced down the throats of Westerners even when they don't want it. 
They are victims of an evil policy; perhaps victims who don't put up enough resistance, but victims 
nonetheless. Eurabia, the deliberate merger of Europe with the Middle East, is not a "conspiracy 
theory" but a well-documented fact, despite what the media might tell you. This is being done on 
such a grand scale that it is difficult for the ordinary person, certainly if he relies only on the heavily 
censored mainstream media, to fully grasp the magnitude of what's going on. If he is at the same 
time culturally broken down and constantly harassed with "anti-racism", then the average European 
citizen can to a large extent be neutralized as potential opposition to the oligarchs and their 
schemes, which was no doubt the intention to begin with. 

Byron M. Roth mentions that rising crime has become a serious problem in recent years, very often 
committed by non-European minorities. He documents a vastly disproportionate representation of 
Muslims and blacks in Western European prisons. Riots and gang rape by young Muslim men have 
been and are still being purposefully downplayed by Western authorities and mass media in order to 
hide the real truth about "cultural diversity." He also mentions that low IQ correlates very highly 
with rates of criminality and antisocial behavior, and wonders what consequences the mass 
importation of low-IQ peoples to the West will have. Is a certain minimum average IQ necessary to 
develop and maintain a complex society? 

The Perils of Diversity again, page 60-61: 

"Are the autocratic societies of North Africa the natural byproduct of societies where an 
insufficient fraction of the population has the intellectual wherewithal to deal with 
political and economic complexity? If people from North Africa and Southwest Asia 
replace European people, will European civilization, including its democracy and 
wealth, be replaced by some new civilization with very different dynamics and values? 
Will America be the same if it becomes a confederation of different ethnic groups with 
different values and aptitudes? Given current immigration policies these are the most 
important questions the Western world must attempt to assess. Such a demographic 
realignment would be epochal in nature and would have ramifications in every corner of 
the globe. When coupled with the rise of China and India as world superpowers, it 
heralds a new chapter in world history that will shape the destiny of mankind for 
centuries to come. Thoughtful people would not hesitate to consider what these epochal 


changes portend for their progeny. Neither would they hesitate to openly consider the 
full consequences of the current immigration policies which, if left on their present 
course, will prove to be irreversible and quite possibly tragic." 

Roth speculates whether what may emerge from these demographic patterns is that the USA will 
move in the direction of countries such as Mexico, dysfunctional states with oligarchic politics. A 
primary thesis of his book is that societies are mainly the product of the genetic nature of the human 
beings who make them up, not geography as Jared Diamond claims. 

Page 468: 

"Put another way, a people living in an environment rich in natural resources may not be 
able to exploit those resources if they lack the human capital to do so. On the other 
hand, societies with greater human capital can prosper in places with only meager 
natural resources. An important element of this thesis is the recognition that culture- 
gene interaction is a two-way street; genes affect cultures, but cultures, in turn, affect 
genes. It is important, however, to recognize that the effect of genes on culture is likely 
to operate quite quickly, while the effects of culture on genes require a much longer 
time to take place. In other words, changes in the demographic makeup of a population 
will have almost immediate effects, whereas the evolutionary impact of a society on its 
inhabitants will take centuries, at the least, to take effect... it follows that current 
immigration patterns are likely to change quite quickly the societies to which 
immigrants go. It will also change those countries, especially those with small 
populations, from which immigrants come. The nature of these changes is likely to be 
wide-ranging and is, without exaggeration, of world-historical significance that will 
affect future generations for centuries to come." 

Roth talks quite candidly about the significance of IQ. The population of the USA is expected to 
reach at least 400 million by 2050. By then China's more homogeneous population may be about 
1.4 billion while India's population is expected to reach 1.6 billion. 

The Perils of Diversity, page 473: 

"In China, with an average estimated IQ of 105, approximately 37% of population will 
exceed the IQ threshold of 110, as compared to about 16% of the population in the U. S. 
Based on the current population estimates, this means that 520 million Chinese will be 
college-capable compared to 64 million Americans, or a ratio of about 8 to 1. Even if we 
use Lynn and Vanhanen's lowest sample IQ from the 10 samples reported for the 
Chinese, which was an IQ of 102, some 30% of China's population, or about 420 
million people, will exceed the 110 threshold, or about 6.5 times the number of 
Americans exceeding that threshold. Put another way, China will have more people in 
this high IQ group, even using the lowest estimate of China's IQ, than the total 
projected population of the entire United States. Of course, China may not be able to 
provide advanced training for those many millions in the next four decades, but they 
will certainly be able to provide it in ever greater numbers, especially if they make it a 
high state priority, as appears to be the case." 


The mean IQ of India is much lower than that of China which, coupled with its large Muslim 
population, means that India probably won't be able to compete with China in the long run. 
However, with a projected population of 1600 million people, this would give a total of about 50 
million people exceeding the 110 threshold, not much fewer than the number in the USA. 
The elites in all Western societies have wholeheartedly adopted an extreme form of 
Multiculturalism. Page 444: 

"It denies historical and scientific evidence that people differ in important biological 
and cultural ways that makes their assimilation into host countries problematic. It is also 
extreme in the viciousness with which it attacks those who differ on this issue. These 
attacks are accompanied by a very generalized and one-sided denigration of Western 
traditions and Western accomplishments, and claims that a collective guilt should be 
assumed by all Europeans (whites) for the sins of their forebears. In the United States 
those sins include the displacement and destruction of the indigenous cultures of the 
Americas, the evils of American slavery, and its continued discrimination against blacks 
and other minority groups. In Europe those sins include the excesses of colonialism and, 
perhaps even more, the acquiescence of Europeans in the Holocaust. In the 
semireligious formulation of this view, expiation of these sins can only come through an 
absolute benevolence toward the poor of the world whose suffering is claimed to be the 
result of the white race and its depredations. In practical terms this can only be 
accomplished through aid to Third World peoples and generous immigration policies 
that allow large numbers of people to escape the poverty of the Third World." 

As Roth says on page 445, if current trends continue much longer, the final outcome of these 
policies is predictable, and "by the end of the 21st century, in virtually all Western societies, white 
Europeans will find themselves minorities in their ancestral homelands. The motivations that drive 
these ideas and policies will be examined in the concluding section, but there can be no doubt as to 
the power of this elite ideology. This multicultural ideology is based on a huge distortion of history 
and is alien to the vast majority of citizens. It can only be maintained by ignoring the wishes of the 
majority and by increasingly coercive means to silence dissent. This coercion takes the form of 
insult and social ostracism in the United States, and in Europe it is supplemented by civil and 
criminal sanction against dissenters. This distinction may well evaporate if the United States 
Supreme Court comes to be dominated by people who accept the multicultural doctrine, an outcome 
that seems likely given the near unanimous liberal ideology of the major law schools and of the 
profession in general." 

He comments on how the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, since much of EU policy is 
determined by unelected bodies such as the Council of Ministers or the European Court of Justice 
and the European Commission, none of which are directly elected by the populace. 

If the growing and perfectly legitimate demands for autonomy and the preservation of national 
cultures among European natives are not met, the alternative will be withdrawal from the EU, 
presaging the dissolution of the EU itself. One possibility is that Fascist-type movements may come 
to power, especially in those nations where Muslims make increasing demands for autonomy or 
indeed supremacy. The result may be the sort of ethnic civil strife that took place in Yugoslavia 
when the multiethnic society there broke down in the 1990s, only this time across much of the 
European continent. Why do European political leaders fail to anticipate these potentially 
catastrophic possibilities and respond by limiting immigration? 

The Perils of Diversity, page 494-495: 

"One possible explanation for these perverse policies that has been put forward by 


highly regarded scholars, such as Samuel Huntington, is that the current leadership of 
the EU is composed of left-wing authoritarians who are enemies of the Western liberal 
tradition. According to Huntington, 'Multiculturalism is in its essence anti- European...' 
and opposes its civilization. The official repression of dissent and pursuance of 
unpopular policies by undemocratic means suggests that such ideologues wish to turn 
the EU into a centrally controlled empire similar to the Soviet Union. If that is the case, 
then their current policies make a good deal of sense, in that they flood the continent 
with people who have lived under autocratic regimes and never lived in democratic 
republics. Such people may well be willing to tolerate repressive regimes provided they 
can maintain a moderate standard of living and their own traditional religious practices. 
As Huntington points out, imperial regimes often promote ethnic conflict among their 
minority citizens to strengthen the power of the central authority, with the not unrealistic 
claim that a powerful central authority is essential to maintain civil order." 

If this trend continues, much of Europe could be "transformed into an authoritarian and illiberal 
multiethnic empire, undemocratic, economically crippled and culturally retrograde." 

The Flemish journalist Paul Belien in 2006 interviewed the Russian-born intellectual Vladimir 
Bukovksy for the online magazine The Brussels Journal. Belien is also the author of A Throne in 
Brussels , in which he argues that the artificial state called Belgium has served as an inspiration for 
the EU itself. Bukovksy, a former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to 
becoming another Soviet Union, the Communist dictatorship that enslaved half of Europe before it 
imploded. In a speech he called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed before it develops into a 
totalitarian state. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political 
prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent twelve 
years in Soviet jails and labor camps. 

The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new people and a new man. The same is 
true of the EU. Bukovksy states that "those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third 
World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be 
regarded as xenophobes." When such artificial entities invariably collapse under the weight of their 
flawed, Utopian ideas, suppressed feelings of national identity may come bouncing back with a 
vengeance. "You can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you 
know. You can press it, you can press it, but don't forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. 
It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot." 

In the EU, the European Parliament reminds Bukovksy of the Supreme Soviet, the largely 
powerless "parliament" which functioned as a rubber stamp for the Politburo. He thinks it looks like 
the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, the European Commission looks like 
the Politburo, the unaccountable and unelected government that held the real power in the Soviet 
Union. In the EU the Commission — which, despite its boring and bureaucratic-sounding name, is 
an immensely powerful entity and the de facto government for half a billion people — is also 
unaccountable to anyone. EU corruption, in the same manner as its Soviet counterpart, flows from 
top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top. 

Bukovksy warns that "There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet 
Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that 
it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The 
recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of 
immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European 


Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in 
the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were 
there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly 
what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is 
going to collapse on our heads." 

I could add here that as bad as the Communist countries were — and to get a glimpse of how bad it 
was there one can read The Gulag Archipelago by the Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn from 
the 1960s — they didn't normally promote mass immigration of culturally alien peoples such as 
Africans or Muslims to their countries. The concept of championing non-European mass 
immigration as a matter of ideological principle first became official state policy in the USA in 
1965, before the same thing happened in Western Europe. Many Multicultural ideas of "whiteness 
studies" or "white privilege," where people of European origins are indoctrinated to hate 
themselves, or busing of non-whites to white schools, were initially developed in North America 
and then exported from there to Europe and Australia. 

The phrase "Political Correctness" first came into use under Communism and meant simply that all 
ideas must conform to and support the agenda of the Communist movement. History and 
philosophy were the first to be forced into line, but as is clear from the career of the biologist 
Trofim Lysenko, science was also made to conform. Those who dissented from the ideas of the 
Communist doctrine were judged to be psychologically imbalanced and confined to mental 
institutions. Today the ruling ideology of the intellectuals is an absolute egalitarianism which 
recognizes no idea, art or historical analysis as better than any other. 

Roth again, page 507: 

"It argues that all histories are narratives fabricated for some class or race advantage. 
Many argue that even science is corrupted by its patriarchal and European roots and 
serves to justify the subjugation of one group by another. This all-encompassing 
egalitarianism gives rise to a nihilistic relativism in which no cultural value or practice 
is better or worse than any other, and to suggest otherwise is to be intolerant of human 
difference and demonstrate an unwillingness to show due respect to the other, to 
illegitimately privilege certain groups, ideas, and artistic works above others... The 
greatest sin in this prevailing orthodoxy is to question the absolute equality of all 
humans and human groups. From the noble idea that all men are equal in the eyes of 
God and should therefore be treated as equals under the laws of man, the modern 
multiculturalist insists that all men are, in fact, equal in all ways, and all cultures equally 
worthy in all respects. This, of course, was the fatal error that Aristotle saw would 
undermine democracy, namely: that since men are equal in some regard, they are 
therefore equal in all regards." 

This prevailing extreme egalitarianism also induces a profound nihilism; if all things are equal then 
no value, moral code or standard of behavior is better than any other. Page 508: 

"This is, of course, the foundation upon which the cult of multiculturalism is based. It 
explains the paralyzing ambivalence of Western societies about immigrant assimilation 
and tolerance of the maintenance of alien traditions. A specific problem for Europe is 
that it welcomes Muslim immigrants, and Muslims categorically reject this view, 
correctly recognizing its nihilism, and see it as far inferior to their own faith and the 
way of life it prescribes. Whether Western elites really believe these things is less 
important than the benefit they gain from its promulgation. The primary benefit is that it 
paralyses the popular preferences for national preservation by characterizing opposition 


to elite doctrines as immoral, indecent, and inhumane. It allows unelected elites to 
aggrandize their own power by obliterating national sovereignty and nullifying 
democratic accountability Many are, without exaggeration, true totalitarians that have 
no regard for the well-being of those they control, since the only way they can 
consolidate their dystopian plans is through brute state power. While there is no doubt 
that many well-meaning individuals join their efforts, they are the sort of 'useful idiots' 
who excused and covered up Communist atrocities during most of the 20th century." 

In the author's view, the only possible way to avoid the extremely negative outcomes outlined 
above is an immediate and complete moratorium on any further mass immigration to the West, yet 

he thinks that this currently constitutes a remote possibility. It 
would not be remote if modern democracies truly reflected the 
wishes of their citizens regarding immigration, since such a 
change of policy would be supported by overwhelming 
majorities in Western nations. It would also be extremely 
beneficial in both economic and cultural terms. Roth, page 

"However, a major limitation of immigration is a remote 
possibility because the elites and the special interests that 
control all the major institutions in Western societies would 
strongly resist any such change. The history of the past three 
decades makes it clear that they will not be moved by popular sentiment unless faced by a very 
unlikely set of circumstances which threaten their own positions of power. It would require a 
popular revolt of enormous proportions against the existing order. Under present circumstances the 
problems outlined above are unlikely to create such a revolt, for the simple reason that the 
population is intentionally denied, by the government and all the major media, the knowledge and 
information that would enable them to fully comprehend the inevitable long-term consequence of 
current policies. This ignorance is reinforced by the legal and social repression of any individual 
willing to voice opposition to those policies. The only way the public could be moved to a major 
reaction against current policies would be events of such a catastrophic nature that they would force 
an increase in the saliency of the costs of current policies to almost everyone and demonstrate the 
need for immediate action." 

Perhaps the most likely threat to the elites' grip on power would be a serious financial meltdown 
causing a severe economic depression throughout the Western world. The near-panicked response 
between 2008 and 2010 of most governments in the West to the financial crisis indicates to Byron 
M. Roth that many of them recognize the dangers they face if this situation should grow much 
worse than it is today. "The massive spending and government intervention in response to the 2008 
downturn is unprecedented and suggests that the characterization of governmental responses as 
panicked is not unreasonable." Page 512: 

"That such a nightmare might be necessary to reverse Western immigration policies 
that, in the long run, promise the demise of Western civilization, is a great tragedy. All 
of which would be unnecessary if elites adopted more sensible approaches to 
immigration and more prudent fiscal policies. It is difficult to decide, on reflection, 
whether the enormous human pain of such a depression would be worth the advantage 
of a reversal of current policies. The dilemma is moot, since such a nightmare scenario 
seems very unlikely, and the current downturn will probably be turned around without 
major unrest. In that case, things will continue on their current course with all the 
negative consequences outlined above. Sometime during the last half of the 21st century 
the world will be very different from it is today. China will undoubtedly be the world's 
dominant power and will likely bring all of Asia into its orbit. Islam will become the 


most common religion in the world with considerably more adherents than Christianity 
or any other religion. Relations between Europe and the Muslim Middle East may be 
one of fairly constant low-level conflict, especially, as is likely, if Muslim countries 
develop nuclear arms and mass immigration to Europe continues." 

This is one of the few instances where I seriously disagree with Mr. Roth. The French writer 
Guillaume Faye predicts a real collapse at some point between 2010 and 2020. I am tempted to 
agree with him. I don't think the current political and economic order in the Western world is stable 
at all. On the contrary, I suspect we are fast approaching a serious historical discontinuity that will 
sweep aside today's suicidal liberalism. It's a house of cards that will collapse as soon as the 
geopolitical tectonic plates make a sudden shift, which they will. 

My personal opinion is that the euro as a currency probably won't exist a few years from now, and 
may well take the European Union down with it. I view this as a desirable outcome since the EU 
constitutes a primary engine behind the ongoing destruction of European civilization and the 
peoples who created it. I also cannot see how the escalating debt crisis in the USA can be resolved 
without social unrest of some kind. Frankly, I will not be surprised at all if the rising tensions we are 
witnessing, and episodes such as the Muhammad cartoon Jihad in 2006, will by future historians be 
viewed as early skirmishes in an impending world war, triggered by the implosion of the Western 
world order. If we are lucky, out of the ashes will emerge a new generation of European civilization, 
with a different mythology and concept of morality. 


Fjordman: Why Islam must be expelled from the West 

December 17, 2010 

On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in 
Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab 

< rope/0, 15 18,734550,00. htm I > , an 
Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in 
Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an 
explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just 
before he could murder dozens of people. 

Black widow is a victim too, sez grandfather: 

Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly's wife Mona on her graduation day 

The widow and three children of the Stockholm bomber are victims of his attempt to cause mass 
murder because they will "live with the stigma" for the rest of their lives, relations said. Her family 
said she had been brought up a "good Christian" but reluctantly converted to Islam "under pressure" 
from Abdulwahab before she married him in 2004. (Telegraph) 

Back to Fjordman: 

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt <> , who is a passionate 
promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an 
established part of European culture, stated that "We were extremely lucky... I mean 
minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very 
catastrophic." Sweden's intelligence agency and a news agency received an email 
with audio files in which a man called on "all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy 
warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back." He 
criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the 
artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message 
warned that "now <> your children, daughters and sisters 
die like our brothers' and sisters' children die." 

We've been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian 
areas in Israel are "freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation." Does that 
mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of 

Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self- 
appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third- 
largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish 
authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent 
among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The 
authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. 
Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to 


all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have 
in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, 
yet they still blow themselves up. In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by 
Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one 
possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That 
Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies. 

Hassan Moussa, who has worked as an imam at the largest mosque 
in the city of Stockholm, has earlier been accused of spreading double messages. What 
he said in his harsh speeches in Arabic didn't match the text as translated in Swedish. A 
journalist warned that "Sweden's 

<http://www.memri.Org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1479.htm> mosques are slowly but surely 
being taken over" by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the 2010 suicide bombing, 
Moussa's recommendations for how to prevent similar events in the future involved 
giving more power to imams and having a "zero 

<> tolerance 
for Islamophobia." 

Prohibiting all forms of criticism or mockery of Islam and its Prophet is an essential part 
of sharia, Islamic religious law. According to Islamic historical sources, individuals such 
as the poetess Asma bint Marwan < 
marwan.html> were killed by the followers of Muhammad for having done nothing 
other than mocking Islam. This then became a part of the Sunna, the personal example 
of Muhammad and his companions, which is the most authoritative source of Islamic 
law next to the Koran itself. It was for the same reason that Theo van Gogh was 
murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. Yes, mainstream, traditional Islam today stipulates that 
those who mock Islam deserve to be murdered. No other major religion on this planet 
dictates anything similar. 

It sounds nearly unbelievable to the average person that one of the largest religions on 
Earth, which is "respected" by the United Nations and political leaders worldwide, can 
be that bad, but this is unfortunately true. Not only is this the case, but the Organization 
of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the UN, is teaming up with 
other dictatorships and African nations as we speak to ban "Islamophobia" across the 
world, also in the West. 

Islam is more totalitarian than the most totalitarian ideologies that have ever existed in 
the Western world. Even Der Fuhrer or Comrade Stalin never expected or demanded 
that every single man should copy all of their personal habits and their silly little 
mustaches, for which we should be eternally grateful. Islam, on the other hand, 
stipulates that all men everywhere and for all times should copy Muhammad's personal 
habits and example in minute detail. 

Islam is a creed which says that men should urinate like Muhammad and that Muslims 
should wage a war against all other men on the planet until they, too, urinate like their 
Prophet. This is a provocative way of putting things, yes, but theologically speaking it is 
not incorrect. While Muhammad was not divine he was, as some Muslims say, the 
"living Koran." John L. Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path, one of the most pro- 
Islamic books in existence, states: 

"Muslims look to Muhammad's example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat 


friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere 
is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions.... His impact on 
Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political 
head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a 
result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for 
community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said 
and did. These reports or traditions {hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and 
written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of 
Muhammad's example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary 
husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the 
pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or 
subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the 
Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of 
wives, diplomacy, and warfare." 

According to sharia, non-Muslim dhimmis can on certain conditions be allowed to retain 
their lives under Islamic rule, provided that they remain totally submissive to Muslims 
at all times. Any perceived "insult," however slight, could immediately trigger violent 
reactions. In practice, a mere rumor that anybody has done something which displeases 
Muslims can cause retaliations and murders. This is how Christians in Pakistan or 
elsewhere live on a daily basis, constantly fearful of Jihadist attacks, and this is how 
many Muslims want us to live as well. Meanwhile, our authorities, intellectuals and 
mass media continue to import people who are plotting to murder us while we have our 
genetalia screened and checked at our airports. 

If a single non-Muslim says anything critical about Islam, his entire community can in 
principle be punished for this. Basically, this means that if one cartoonist in Germany, 
the USA or Denmark makes a cartoon mocking Muhammad, this could potentially 
trigger Jihadist terrorist attacks against his entire country for "waging a war against 
Islam," because his "tribe" is held collectively responsible for his actions. This was 
exactly the Islamic logic behind Taimour Abdulwahab's terror attack in Stockholm. 
There is no such thing as an individual in this culture; the tribe is everything. Muslims, 
being good hypocrites, are always the first following an Islamic terrorist attack to state 
that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few, yet this is precisely 
what their own laws prescribe for non-Muslims. 

Before the general elections in 2006 < 
muslim-blackmail-of-swedish.html> the Swedish Muslim League, the largest Islamic 
organization in the country, published a long list where they not merely requested, but 
essentially demanded, separate family laws <http :// sp/Crosslink.j sp? 
d=22620&a=58 1797&amp:lid=puff_40 1 860&amp:lpos=lasMer> for Muslims; 
that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims 
children in the language of their original homeland. (The Swedish city of Malmo 
already has pre-school classes where all teaching is conducted in Arabic. This is "good 
for integration."); a "mosque in every municipality," built through interest-free loans 
made available by local municipalities to demonstrate "Islam's right to exist in Sweden" 
and to "heighten the status of and respect for" Muslims; separation between boys and 
girls in gymnastics and swimming education; and laws instating Islamic holidays as 
public holidays for Muslims. Swedes should also ensure that all Muslims get two hours 
off from work during the congregational Friday prayer every week and an Islamic burial 
ground available in every municipality in which there are Muslims. Last, but not least, 
they demanded that the authorities and the already heavily censored, pro-Multicultural 


mass media should take even stronger steps to combat "Islamophobia" in the general 

These demands were rejected back then, but they will be repeated, not just in Sweden 
but throughout the Western world. As long as we have sizeable Muslim communities 
here this is inevitable. Muslims are not here to live in peace as equals; they are here to 
colonize, subjugate, harass and dominate us. Their holy book, the Koran, demands 
nothing less. 

But if all of this is true, how can we coexist peacefully with Muslims in our countries? 
The short answer is that we cannot. No matter how much you appease them, it will 
never be enough. As a matter of fact, since they come from a culture which respects 
only brute force they will despise you as weak and become more aggressive if you try to 
reason with them. 

Their religion also states that Muslims are the "best of peoples" - the true master race - 
and that they are destined by Allah to rule all mankind. They are filled with illusions of 
grandeur and superiority, yet the harsh reality is that their societies are lagging behind 
those of others. This constitutes an inversion of the natural order which can only have 
been caused by demonic actions and must be reversed at all costs. As long as they 
remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a 
religious duty for them to do so. 

So why don't you hear this from most Western political leaders or mass media? Because 
they are lying to you, plain and simple. The truth is that there is no such thing as a 
moderate Islam; that nobody has yet managed to come up with a credible theoretical 
way to reform Islam; and that there are no practical indications of any softening or 
modernization of Islam actually taking place. Since the adherents of this creed in its 
present form are waging a war of annihilation against us and the civilization we have 
created, this leaves only one possible conclusion if we wish to retain our culture and 
freedom: Physical separation. Islam and those who practice it must be totally and 
permanently removed from all Western nations. 

Potential objections can be raised to this solution. One is that it might provoke Muslims 
and trigger a world war. To this I will say that our mere existence as free and self-ruled 
peoples constitutes a provocation to them. Besides, we are already in a world war. 
Technically speaking, it started 1400 years ago, the mother of all wars. Against 
European civilization it has witnessed two main phases, the first one with the Arabs in 
early medieval times, and the second one with the Turks in early modern times. This is 
the third Islamic Jihad, and it has penetrated deeper into Europe than ever before 
because we don't fight back. If the other guy walks up to you and starts punching you in 
the face then you are already in a fight, whether you want this or not. If you do not 
defend yourself properly then you have already lost. 

Another objection is that expelling Muslims from the West would not end the war. They 
would merely continue from their original home countries, aided by missiles and 
modern technology. This could well be true. The separationist strategy does not imply 
that removing Islam from the West alone is all that will ever be required, only that this 
is the bare minimum that is acceptable. If Muslims remain aggressive, we retain the 
option of further actions, including directly targeting their holy cities of Mecca and 
Medina using conventional or non-conventional weapons. Having large numbers of 
Muslims in our societies is anyway very costly, and the aggressive fifth column in our 


midst will severely limit our freedom of action. 

Finally, one could claim that the overall problem with the modern West is the general 
mass immigration and Multiculturalism promoted by our treasonous elites and that 
Islam merely constitutes a secondary infection. This is also partly true. No, just because 
Muslim immigration is especially bad does not mean that all other forms of immigration 
are unproblematic. Nevertheless, Muslims top the list over hostile aliens who do not 
belong in European or European-derived nations. The Islamic threat is real and needs to 
be dealt with. 

The Serbian-American writer Serge Trifkovic, author of the book Defeating Jihad, has 
stated that the ongoing failure by their entrusted leaders to demographically protect 
European and European-derived nations constitutes the greatest betrayal in history. I am 
tempted to agree with him. In the end, the traitors and fifth columnists we have in our 
media and academia must be removed from power and replaced with people who are 
loyal to us and our nations. 

Related links: 

Stockholm jihadist was not on list of 200 known "extremists" 

There may be 200 that they know of now, but it was number 201 of the Tiny Minority of 
Extremists that very nearly succeeded in committing mass murder. More on this story . 
"Suicide bomber in Sweden not on security list," by Louise Nordstrom for the 
Associated Press , December 15 (thanks to JW): 

Report: "About 200 Islamic extremists" in Sweden 

Adding a few zeros would be closer to reality, but this is the age of spin. Apart from that, there is a 
much bigger problem: 

where strength and tactical capabilities for overt jihad are lacking, there are the many 
means of stealth jihad, and slow demographic conquest enabled by a welfare state 
insufficiently shielded from outright abuse. Then there are the Muslim-dominated "no- 
go" zones of Malmo where police and ambulances are afraid to enter. 

Norway: Security chief said jihadist was a threat only when single and depressed 

It's time to provide jihadists with taxpayer- funded girlfriends and anti-depressants! This 
will solve everything! Here is a translation of portions of "Bhatti ingen trussel sa lenge 
han er blid og sammen med kjseresten," by Kari Tone Sperstad, Hans Henrik Torgersen, 
Erlend Skevik, Alf Bjarne Johnsen, Ingar Johnsrud, Gunn Karin Hegvik and Lars M. 
Glomnes for the Associated Press , December 15 (thanks to JW): 

Bhatti no threat as long as he is happy and with his girlfriend 


The curious civilization 

Monday, March 21, 2011 

The eminent scholar Toby E. Huff in late 2010 published his book Intellectual Curiosity and the 
Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective, which inspired this essay He was also the author of the 
modern classic The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. 

When the pro-Chinese English scholar Joseph Needham investigated the history of science among 
the Chinese he was eventually forced to conclude that "one can hardly speak of a developed science 
of physics" in China prior to modern contact with Europeans. It lacked the systematic thinkers that 
one encounters in the history of mechanics in medieval Europe, where there was an established 
tradition of arguing with Aristotle's conceptions of motion. These include names such as 
Philoponus, Buridan, Bradwardine and Oresme, who all contributed to developments that 
culminated in Galileo's work. In China there was no Galileo, nor Kepler's laws of celestial motion 
which formed the basis for Newton's great synthesis. 

The cosmological outlook of the Chinese organically linked the Earth, and above all the royal 
family, to the Heavens and the spirit world. The misbehavior of officials, it was thought, and 
especially of the Emperor himself, might result in famines, earthquakes, droughts or other natural 
disasters because they had displeased the spirit world. Similarly, anomalies in the heavens were 
taken as portents of the future and might predict future events that should be known only to the 
Emperor. For this reason, there was a powerful inclination in Imperial China to keep sky watching 
confined to the official bureaucracy under a veil of secrecy. 

Chinese astronomical theory was never very sophisticated compared to that of the ancient Greeks, 
not to mention that which developed in modern Europe after the Scientific Revolution, but on a 
strictly practical level they had a rich tradition of celestial observation that was directly related to 
calendar making. As Huff asks, why didn't the arrival of the telescope with Jesuit astronomers have 
the same fructifying effect on scientific inquiry there as it did in 

The number of stars accurately catalogued by European astronomers 

more than tripled through the use of the telescope during the 

seventeenth century. Yet despite the fact that Western European 

eyeglasses by the sixteenth century had been exported in significant 

quantities to the Middle East and as far east as China, Asians did not 

conduct experiments with such glass lenses leading to their own 

construction of telescopes. What is even stranger is that after Asian 

nations had been introduced to the European telescope in the 1600s 

they were surprisingly slow in using it to gain new astronomical 

insights. Huff's provocative suggestion is that they suffered from what he terms a curiosity deficit 

vis-a-vis Europeans. 

The Middle East had a very ancient tradition of making glass for decorative purposes. The region 
had also produced theoretical studies of optical phenomena inspired by ancient Greek works that 
were superior to those of East, Southeast or South Asia. Yet after Muslims were confronted with 
European glass lenses they made almost no creative contributions of their own. Apart from some 
limited interest in using telescopes for military purposes or for spying on the infidels, there was 
little response to this new European device in Islamic-ruled lands: 


In short, telescopes had been widely disseminated across the Ottoman Middle East, 
among the Safavids, and in the Mughal Empire within a decade or two after their 
invention in Europe in 1608-09 and the appearance of Galileo's revolutionary 
revelations in The Starry Messenger of 1610. Yet, the telescope's arrival in Muslim 
lands — in Mughal India, the Ottoman Empire, and elsewhere — hardly created a stir. 
No new observatories were built, no improved telescopes were manufactured, and no 
cosmological debates about what the telescope revealed in the heavens have been 
reported." The shift to a Copernican and Newtonian worldview was greatly delayed in 
the Middle East, as well as in India and China. "In that regard, the curiosity deficit seen 
in China also prevailed in the Muslim world. 

Muslims, however, were much more aggressively hostile to Western ideas than were the Chinese. 
European Jesuit scholars like Matteo Ricci were allowed to practice their religion in China and even 
to convert some of the locals to Christianity. They would have been killed for doing the same in the 
Islamic world since this constitutes a capital offense under Islamic law. 

Huff believes that an infectious ethos of scientific curiosity that existed across Europe was 
unmatched elsewhere in the early modern world. At the end of the day, there was no Thai 
Leeuwenhoek, no Korean Galileo, no Chinese Newton, no Indian Leibniz and no Turkish Tycho 

Toby E. Huff comments on the fact that several leading writers in recent years have claimed the 
parity or superiority of China to Europe economically prior to the eighteenth or nineteenth century, 
but they have often more or less ignored the Scientific Revolution and the enormous technological 
and economic impact it had. This would include Kenneth Pomeranz in The Great Divergence, or 
books with such titles as The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. 

There was a different public sphere of information sharing and debate in parts of Europe. In the 
seventeenth century, pamphlets evolved into newspapers, with the London Gazette appearing in 
1666. Nothing like this took place outside of Western Europe at this point. 

Researchers Sascha O. Becker, Erik Hornung and Ludger Woessmann have reinterpreted Max 
Weber's thesis and found that Protestant economies "prospered because instruction in reading the 
Bible generated the human capital crucial to economic prosperity." They also found that 
Protestantism's strong effect on literacy rates was "large enough to account for practically the entire 
Protestant lead in economic outcomes." Protestant countries had near universal literacy in 1900, but 
no Catholic country had reached full literacy, with many falling far short. 

Estimates of book production in Asia reveal exceedingly low levels of production. It was close to 
zero in the cases of India or present-day Indonesia because printing did not become widespread in 
much of South and Southeast Asia until the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Even regarding East 
Asia, where block printing had been invented a thousand years earlier, numbers provided by 
Sinologists indicate that total book production in Europe in the early modern era was vastly greater 
than in China. Moreover, those Asian books that were produced had little to do with scientific 
advances, mechanics, electrical studies or air pumps. 

Britain, and Europe more broadly, had a major intellectual, institutional and human capital 
advantage that fed directly into the early Industrial Revolution, human capital here used to measure 
the knowledge, skills, health and experience of a society's inhabitants. Seen in this light, "it is 


apparent that Western Europe was on an entirely different developmental plane than the non-West. 
This was probably true since the time of the Greeks." Nevertheless, the Dutch economist Jan Luiten 
van Zanden has showed that this has roots in medieval times, with the establishment of 
corporations, parliaments, universities and professional associations. Western human capital 
formation from the fifteenth century onward was thus far ahead of the rest of the world, but Japan's 
high literacy rate was the closest equivalent outside of Europe: 

According to van Zanden, that lead was probably 300 to 400 years ahead of rivals such 
as Japan and China. Non-Europeans were triply disadvantaged: first, whereas literacy 
rates rose rapidly in Europe from the sixteenth century onward (perhaps even as early as 
the fifteenth century), levels of literacy in non- Western countries were extremely low 
and remained so to the end of the twentieth century; second, there was no scientific 
revolution outside the West; and third, the legal and intellectual foundations for stable 
economic development as well as democracy and constitutional government were 
absent. Nothing parallel to the legally circumscribed public sphere of newspapers and 
public dissent appeared outside Europe before the end of the first quarter of the 
nineteenth century. Even then, those publications were distant approximations of the 
European press. All these results run counter to those who argue that there was no 
cultural or institutional difference between Western Europe and China, Mughal India, or 
the Ottoman Empire in this period. Finally, we cannot overlook among all these assets 
the unique broad-based scientific curiosity that propelled modern science throughout the 
seventeenth century. 

As the leading historian J.M.Roberts put it: "The massive indifference of some civilisations and 
their lack of curiosity about other worlds is a vast subject. Why, until very recently, did Islamic 
scholars show no wish to translate Latin or western European texts into Arabic? Why, when the 
English poet Dryden could confidently write a play focused on the succession in Delhi after the 
death of the Mogul emperor Aurungzebe, is it a safe guess that no Indian writer ever thought of a 
play about the equally dramatic politics of the English seventeenth-century court? It is clear that an 
explanation of European inquisitiveness and adventurousness must lie deeper than economics, 
important though they may have been. It was not just greed which made Europeans feel they could 
go out and take the world. The love of gain is confined to no particular people or culture. It was 
shared in the fifteenth century by many an Arab, Gujarati or Chinese merchant. Some Europeans 
wanted more. They wanted to explore." 

If one looks up the meaning of the term "curious" as it is used in modern English, it carries the 
primary meaning of being marked by desire to investigate and learn to know how the world works. 
However, the word can carry the connotation of being novel, singular and unusual in the slightly 
negative sense of being odd or strange . Finally, being curious can carry the decidedly negative 
meaning of being meddlesome or prying, of taking an undue interest in other people's affairs and 
thrusting oneself into their affairs unasked and unwelcomed. 

I would venture to say that all of these different designations can accurately describe some defining 
characteristics of Western civilization: First and foremost we have an unusually powerful positive 
interest in knowing how the world and the universe looks like and works. We have made unusual 
advancements, but sometimes also strange and unusual mistakes. Finally, I have to admit that we 
can occasionally display a tendency to be meddlesome and unduly interefere into other people's 
affairs. In short, the West is the curious civilization. 


Fjordman: the Chinese and the irrational 

April 1,2011 

James Evans in The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy has written an extremely thorough 
account of astronomy during historical times in the Middle East and Europe, up to and including 
Kepler just prior to the telescope. In his view, "The remarkable accuracy of the Babylonian 
observers is a silly fiction that one still frequently encounters in popular writing about early 
astronomy" The important thing is that there was a tradition of making observations, recording 
them carefully and a social mechanism for preserving the records. 

The gods were believed to speak through objects and events in the natural world, including animal 
entrails, dreams and celestial phenomena. Omens were important for every level of Mesopotamian 
society, yet astronomical observations did not become the major focus of divination until after 1500 
BC. Mesopotamian bureaucrats and astronomers/astrologers gradually amassed detailed 
information about the movement of the planets after 800 BC. 

By the fifth century BC, Babylonian celestial divination had expanded to embrace horoscopic 
astrology, which used planetary positions at the moment of the date of birth to predict individual 
fortunes. As explained by science historian James Evans, "While horoscopic astrology was certainly 
of Babylonian origin (as, indeed, the Greek and Roman writers always claimed), it was elaborated 
into a complex system by the Greeks. Thus, the familiar and fantastically complicated system of 
horoscopic astrology with dozens of conflicting rules does not descend from remote antiquity. 
Rather it is a product of Hellenistic and Roman times." 

An Egyptian astronomical interest can be detected in the alignment of their temples and pyramids, 
but rarely on the level of sophistication seen in Mesopotamia. The ceilings of royal tombs from the 
Middle Kingdom on, for instance in the Valley of the Kings in Luxor, contain drawings that could 
be described as simple celestial maps, yet with the partial exception of their solar calendar it does 
not seem to have occurred to them to seek for any deeper explanation of what they observed. The 
Egyptians "seem to have produced no systematic records of planetary movements, eclipses, or other 
phenomena of a plainly irregular sort." 

o To the ancient Greeks, the planets were "wandering stars." Our word planet comes from a 

Greek verb meaning to wander. The modern names for the five naked-eye planets are the names of 
Roman divinities which were more or less equivalent to a number of Greek gods. Most people 
today probably know this. What many of them don't know is that some of the Greek names 
themselves may have been derived from Babylonian divinities in Mesopotamia. 

Mars was often associated with war because of its reddish color, which can be spotted through 
naked-eye observations; the ancient Egyptians called it the Red One. However, there are other 
parallels that are unlikely to be accidental. In ancient Mesopotamia, Ishtar was the Babylonian and 
Assyrian counterpart of Inanna, the moody Sumerian goddess of love and fertility, identified with 
the planet Venus. To the Romans, Venus was the goddess of love and fertility, their equivalent of the 
Greek goddess Aphrodite, who was also a symbol of love and fertility. 

In the eyes of Walter Burkert, a few similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Homeric poetry 
can no longer be ignored. He is nevertheless careful to point out that natural and political 
philosophy in the true sense was a Greek invention as much as was deductive proof in mathematics. 
As Ibn Warraq puts it, "what emerges is something entirely distinctive: what we call Greek 
civilization. The very strength of this civilization lay in its ability to learn from and improve upon 
the ideas, art, and literature of the Near East, Persia, India, and Egypt." 


The website of the American Institute of Physics states that despite their observations, the 


explanations that the Babylonian, Mayan and early Chinese sky-watchers devised for planetary 
movements "were no more than colorful myths. Scientific cosmology - the search for a picture of 
the universe that would make sense with no mention of divine beings - began with the Greeks. 
They sought to look beyond the patterns of numbers to something fundamental.... Aristotle taught 
that rotating spheres carried the Moon, Sun, planets, and stars around a stationary Earth. The Earth 
was unique because of its central position and its material composition. All generation and 
corruption occurred in the 'sublunar' region, below the Moon and above the Earth. This region was 
composed of the four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. Beyond the Moon was the unchanging 
and perfect celestial region. It was composed of a mysterious fifth element. Greek philosophers 
estimated the distance to the Moon, and even tried to calculate the size of the entire universe. They 
believed it was finite." 

B The goals and methods of Babylonian astronomy were very different from those of the 

Greeks. In particular, the Babylonians seem to have had little interest in the actual motions of the 
celestial bodies as long as they could predict eclipses. Later Greek astronomers were well aware of 
these fundamental differences in the approach. "For example, Theon of Smyrna says that the 
Babylonian astronomers, using arithmetical methods, succeeded in confirming the observed facts 
and in predicting future phenomena, but that, nevertheless, their methods were imperfect, for they 
were not based on a sufficient understanding of nature, and one must also examine these matters 
physically." They did not base their astronomy on an elaborate philosophy of nature. There was no 
Babylonian, Egyptian or Indian equivalent of Aristotle. 

The Maya in Mesoamerica devoted much attention to divination and amassed detailed studies of the 
movements of the Sun, Moon and planets over long periods of time. The Inca elites in pre- 
Columbian South America, too, elaborated special forms of divination. The Chinese had their own 
ideas about the stars and divination from an early date, but may have absorbed additional ideas from 
Babylonian astrology by way of India during the Han Dynasty. 

The Chinese lunisolar calendar with its twelve Zodiac signs (the rat, ox, tiger etc.) is used for 
marking holidays such as the Chinese New Year. The first known divinations there are found on 
inscribed oracle bones and turtle shells in the city of Anyang in northeastern China from 1200 BC 
or slightly before and "concern military expeditions, the construction of towns, illnesses, journeys, 
births - of significance to the King or (what comes to the same) the state." 

The cosmological outlook of the Chinese organically linked the Earth, and above all the royal 
family, to the Heavens and the spirit world. The misbehavior of officials, it was thought, and 
especially of the Emperor himself, might result in famines, earthquakes, droughts or other natural 
disasters because they had displeased the spirit world. Similarly, anomalies in the heavens were 
taken as portents of the future and might predict future events that should be known only to the 
Emperor. For this reason, there was a powerful inclination in Imperial China to keep sky watching 
confined to the official bureaucracy under a veil of secrecy. 

■ Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd, a prominent historian from the University of Cambridge, 

England, explores the origins of systematic inquiry in Greece, China and Mesopotamia with his 
book The Ambitions of Curiosity: Understanding the World in Ancient Greece and China: 

"Both Chinese and Greeks shared the notion that the world as a whole - 'heaven and 
earth' in Chinese terms, the cosmos in Greek ones - is orderly, but the forms their 
notions of orderliness took differ, providing interesting insights also into their divergent 
notions of intelligibility. In China, the regular relations between heaven and earth are, in 
a sense, the responsibility of the Emperor who acts as a mediator between them. On him 
depend not just the welfare of 'all under heaven', but also the orderly relations between 
heaven and earth themselves. They are a matter of due processes of change: yet these 
could be disrupted. When irregularities occurred, that could be taken as a warning, a 
sign of danger or even that the Emperor's mandate was coming to an end - though the 
non-occurrence of an eclipse could be taken as a sign of his virtue. Order in the heavens, 


in that sense, could not be taken for granted. In Greece, by contrast, cosmic regularities 
are unchanging." 

G.E.R Lloyd goes on to show that the most important aspects of the institutional framework in 
China were the existence of considerable numbers of official posts, the sense that it was the ruler or 
his ministers that were the prime audience and the acceptance of the authority of the canons. "In 
Greece, with far fewer established positions available, far more depended on the skill that 
individuals showed in the cut and thrust of open debate - whether within a school or group, or 
between them, or just among individuals. It was success in argument with rivals that secured a 
reputation, essential not least if you were to make a living as a teacher. In these respects, the 
tradition of debate itself stands out as the key institution (of a different kind from those of bureaux 
or courts) in the situation within which most Greek intellectuals operated." 

As the esteemed author Charles Murray asks, was axiomatic logic inevitable? That is far from 
certain. "It is easy to assume that someone like Aristotle was not so much brilliant as fortunate in 
being born when he was. A number of basic truths were going to be figured out early in mankind's 
intellectual history, and Aristotle gave voice to some of them first. If he hadn't, someone else soon 
would have. But is that really true? Take as an example the discovery of formal logic in which 
Aristotle played such a crucial role. Nobody had discovered logic (that we know of) in the 
civilizations of the preceding five millennia. Thinkers in the non- Western world had another two 
millennia after Aristotle to discover formal logic independently, but they didn't. Were we in the 
West 'bound' to discover logic because of some underlying aspect of Western culture? Maybe, but 
what we know for certain is that the invention of logic occurred in only one time and one place, that 
it was done by a handful of individuals, and that it changed the history of the world. Saying that a 
few ancient Greeks merely got there first isn't adequate acknowledgement of their leap of 
imagination and intellect." 

A small band of Greek thinkers, starting with Thales from about 600 BC, embarked on a serious, 
critical inquiry into the nature of the world around them. The Milesian philosophers disagreed and 
used logic and reason to criticize the ideas of others. They did not immediately leave all traces of 
supernatural intervention behind; a perspective of repeated divine intervention could be traced in 
some of the writings of Herodotus in the fifth century BC. 

Anaximander judged eclipses to be the result of blockage of the apertures in rings of celestial fire. 
According to the philosopher Heraclitus, the heavenly bodies are bowls filled with fire, and an 
eclipse occurs when the open side of a bowl turns away from us. David C. Lindberg elaborates in 
his accessible book The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in 
Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450: 

"These theories of Anaximander and Heraclitus do not seem particularly sophisticated 
(fifty years after Heraclitus the philosophers Empedocles and Anaxagoras understood 
that eclipses were simply a case of cosmic shadows), but what is of critical importance 
is that they exclude the gods. The explanations are entirely naturalistic; eclipses do not 
reflect personal whim or the arbitrary fancies of the gods, but simply the nature of fiery 
rings or of celestial bowls and their fiery contents. The world of the philosophers, in 
short, was an orderly, predictable world in which things behave according to their 
natures. The Greek term used to denote this ordered world was kosmos, from which we 
draw our word 'cosmology' The capricious world of divine intervention was being 
pushed aside, making room for order and regularity; chaos was yielding to kosmos. A 
clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural was emerging; and there was 
wide agreement that causes (if they are to be dealt with philosophically) must be sought 
only in the natures of things. The philosophers who introduced these new ways of 
thinking were called by Aristotle physikoi or physiologoi, from their concern 
withphysis or nature." 


o The Classical scholar Eric Robertson Dodds in 1951 published The Greeks and the Irrational 

as a critique of the commonly held view that ancient Greek culture represented the triumph of 
"rationalism." He demonstrated with examples how perceived spiritual influences or the notion of 
divine inspiration was common in Greece up to the time of Plato. While maybe true, this should not 
cause us to forget some of the unique contributions that the Greeks did make. 

As we have seen, philosophers in Greece knew that moonlight is reflected sunlight. Plutarch even 
suggested that people live on the MoonAround 300 BC, the geographer Pytheas of Massilia 
described the ocean tides and suggested a relationship to the Moon. Poseidonius (ca. 135-50 BC), a 
Greek Stoic philosopher and teacher of the Roman statesman Cicero, also correlated variations in 
the tides with phases of the Moon, and in the second century BC the Chinese had recognized a 
connection between tides and the lunar cycle. While correct, these insights did not progress further 
since nobody could explain why there was such a correlation. 

Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation enabled the first explanation. Most of the Earth's tides are 
caused by the Moon, with the Sun contributing a smaller part and other planets like Jupiter have a 
negligible effect. When the Sun, Moon and Earth are aligned, the Sun's and Moon's gravity in 
combination create what we call spring tides, the highest high tides. This occurs at every new and 
full Moon. Neap tides are weak tides which occur during quarter Moons. 

When the Moon passes through the shadow cast by the Earth we see a lunar eclipse. A solar eclipse 
occurs for a few minutes in the lunar shadow whenever the two celestial bodies line up vis-a-vis the 
Earth and the Moon is totally or partially obscuring the Earth's view of the Sun. By pure chance, the 
Sun is 400 times larger than our Moon, but also 400 times farther from us, making the two bodies 
appear the same size relative to us. A similar coincidence does not happen anywhere else in our 
Solar System. Hundreds of millions of years from now, when the Moon has slowly moved further 
away from us, all solar eclipses on our planet will be partial. 

Lunar eclipses can only occur at Full Moon when the Moon is directly opposite the Earth in relation 
to the Sun. The Chinese word for eclipseis chih, which means " to eat ." In ancient China, people 
beat drums and banged on pots to scare off the "heavenly dog" believed to be devouring the 
Sun. The bloody cast of the Moon in some eclipses only added to the fear of what was going on 
among many ancient peoples, quite possibly also in prehistoric Europe. 

Even into the nineteenth century AD, the Chinese navy fired cannons to scare off the dragon or 
beast they imagined was eating the Moon. Christopher Columbus and his crew, stranded in Jamaica 
in 1503 on his fourth voyage, were wearing out their welcome with the natives who were feeding 
them. Columbus knew a lunar eclipse was coming and "predicted" the Moon's disappearance. The 
natives begged him to bring it back which, of course, he did, in due time. 


Unlike Mesoamericans, Andean peoples had not worked out the cycles of Earth, Sun and Moon that 
would allow them to predict eclipses, so these were frightening events. In South America, "when a 
solar eclipse occurred, the Incas would consult their diviners, who usually determined that a great 
prince was about to die and the Sun had thus gone into mourning. He continued that the Inca 
reaction was to sacrifice boys, girls, and livestock; the priestesses dedicated to the Sun went into 
mourning themselves, fasted, and made frequent sacrifices. Lunar eclipses were thought to occur 
because a puma or a snake was eating the moon. The corrective was to frighten the beast away by 
shouting, blowing trumpets, beating drums, hurling spears and other weapons toward the heavens, 
and whipping dogs until they howled." 

Toby E. Huff shows in The Rise of Early Modern Science that a very different metaphysical outlook 
prevailed in Chinese civilization compared to the worldview we find in Europe: 

"In place of the Western atomism governed by laws of nature, or the Islamic 
occasionalism governed by God's will, we find an organic world of primary forces 
(yang and yin) and the five phases (metal, wood, water, fire, and earth) constantly 


shifting in recurrent cycles. Within this cosmos there is no prime mover, no high God, 
no lawgiver. Of course, it is assumed that there is a pattern to existence and that there is 
a unique way (tao) for all things. But the explanation of the patterns of existence is not 
to be sought in a set of laws or mechanical processes, but in the structure of the organic 
unity of the whole. Moreover, Chinese cosmological thought came to stress the 
harmonious unity of natural and human patterns. That is, the patterns of the natural 
world were studied in order to find correlative correspondences between the patterns of 
heaven and those of human society below." 

The web of government and spiritual forces was so intimate that the traffic between the earthly and 
the spiritual worlds was constantly trod by officials speaking as gods and spirits speaking as 
officials. "In such a manner, the divine sanctioning of the authority of the emperor had its 
counterparts on the local level, and these served to reinforce the autocratic structure of government 
and local administration." The prevailing Confucian ethic stressed the need to maintain outward 
obedience and respect for all authorities. To Chinese eyes, such public displays as challenging the 
word of authority figures constitute unforgivable signs of disrespect and dissension and the ultimate 
betrayal of filial piety. "In short, the Confucian stress on obedience stifled the development of all 

forms of contentiousness in public forums." 


He stresses that although medieval Europeans could debate the hierarchy of angles, the marriage 
between Greek philosophy and Biblical doctrines created a basis for viewing the world as orderly. 
The almighty God could make miracles if He wanted to, but such miracles were held to be rare 
events and the exceptions that proved the rule. This is in sharp contrast to the whimsical nature of 
Allah as portrayed in Islam, whose actions can never be predicted. 

Huff in his writings emphasizes "the European medieval belief that man is a rational creature, one 
possessed of reason and conscience, and by virtue of these capacities is capable of understanding 
and deciphering the secrets of nature, with or without the aid of Scripture. Similarly, the medieval 
Europeans frequently deployed the metaphors of the 'world machine' (machina mundi) and the 
'Book of Nature,' two devices giving pattern and intelligibility to the study of nature. Both ideas 
were integral to the teachings of the medievals (as in the writings of Grosseteste and Sacrobosco), 
and this shows again how deeply the metaphysical and religious roots of scientific culture are 
imbedded in the history of the West." 

B By the seventeenth century, the European astronomical presence in China was significant. 

Western scholars had proved themselves superior to local astronomers when it came to making 
calendars and accurate predictions of eclipses. European Jesuit scholars used their undeniable edge 
in scientific and astronomical matters as a way of gaining entrance to the higher levels of Chinese 
society with the goal of promoting Christianity there, but the need for predicting lucky and unlucky 
days together with astrological divination for the Emperor and his court created tensions as to how 
far devout Christians could accommodate very different Asian beliefs, including what they viewed 
as superstition. Chinese divinatory emphasis on finding properly chosen sites and times of burial 
was powerful, and "the siting and burial of royal ancestors was a momentous event with serious 
consequences for all those involved." 

Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666) was a Jesuit missionary from Cologne, Germany, who worked 
in China. During the final years of the Ming and the early years of the Qing Dynasty he gained the 
official title of mandarin and was heavily involved in reforming the Chinese calendar. This 
prominent position, however, might involve significant dangers in China. He was charged with 
being responsible, as head of the Bureau of Astronomy, for selecting an inauspicious date for the 
burial of a young prince who died prematurely. The fiercely anti-Christian scholar Yang Guangxian 
(1597-1669) led the assault on Schall and the Jesuits. Huff tells the tale again, this time in his 
book Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: 


"Schall, the newly arrived Ferdinand Verbiest, and other Jesuits were rounded up, bound with 'nine 
long and thick chains of iron, all with iron locks; three around the neck, three on the arms, and three 
on the feet,' and carted off to jail. In the meantime, Yang Guangxian submitted still another 
memorial claiming that Schall, through his choice of an inauspicious date, was responsible not only 
for the premature death of the prince but also his mother and the emperor himself, who died of 
smallpox in 1661. Schall was partially paralyzed by a stroke precipitated by these events and had to 
rely on the Flemish Jesuit Ferdinand Verbiest for his defense. An investigation was undertaken and, 
on April 24, 1665, Schall and all the others were judged guilty: Schall was to be executed by 
dismemberment. Others involved were to be exiled after receiving forty blows with the bamboo. 
The next day, however, an earthquake rocked Beijing, leading all concerned to believe that perhaps 
an injustice had been done. The Princess Dowager intervened, absolving the Jesuits. The Jesuits, 
except for Schall, were released." 

Schall was placed under temporary house arrest and two non-Christian officials were pardoned, 
while several Chinese Christian converts, including Schall's assistant Li Zubai, were beheaded for 
treason. Schall died the following year. The charges on which they were sentenced were those of 
sedition, although the judge admitted that he found it hard to determine which astronomical system 
was correct. Ironically, a few years later a test showed that Yang Guangxian as head of the Bureau 
of Astronomy could not produce a valid calendar in competition with Verbiest and the Europeans. 
He ended up being threatened with death himself for this failure and was eventually exiled to his 
home province, where he died. 

A number of comments can be made about this episode. First of all is the fact that scholars often led 
a more dangerous and scientifically restricted life in China or in many other complex societies than 
they did in Europe, contrary to popular myth. Focusing only on the case of Galileo and ignoring this 
gives us a false picture of reality. First and foremost, however, it demonstrates that the leap to a 
(predominantly) non-magical worldview that had been achieved by certain Greek thinkers in 
Antiquity was far from self-evident. The Chinese, one of the most populous and prosperous nations 
in the world, as well as one of the cleverest according to themselves, still hadn't made the same leap 
more than two thousand years later. 

Some will probably claim that Europeans were just lucky and that other cultures were close to 
making a similar breakthrough. This view is highly questionable. The truth is that the most 
sophisticated Asian societies, or for that matter the complex urban cultures of Mesoamerica or the 
Andes region, were nowhere near making a similar breakthrough 500 years ago. Pre-colonial 
Australia and sub-Saharan Africa don't even rank on the same scale in this regard. 

The Chinese are practical people, which I for the most part mean as a compliment, and indeed often 
quite intelligent. One of the aspects of their culture that I find hard to relate to is their preoccupation 
with such things as "lucky and unlucky numbers." Yes, you can encounter such notions in the West, 
too, but they are far more prominent in Oriental cultures. Many Chinese also seem to believe that 
luck is a character trait and that bad luck only happens to bad people. 

From everything I have read, I have seen nothing to convince me that any other culture on Earth 
was moving in the same directions as Europeans did with the Scientific Revolution. Let us ask a 
provocative question: Would we have space travel today if we removed Europeans from the world? 
The answer is almost certainly no. China, the largest and richest country in Asia, was literally a 
couple of thousand years behind in certain crucial fields of astronomy, chemistry, mathematics and 
physics. Electricity was essentially unknown outside of Europe, as was calculus, the concept of 
gravity, modern material science and liquid hydrogen rocket fuel. My bet is that we would not have 
space travel, astrophysics or planetary science for a great many centuries to come without 
Europeans, as nobody else was independently close to making many of the crucial scientific and 
technological breakthroughs needed to achieve this. 


Critics will no doubt point out that the ancient Greeks, despite their reputation for being rationalist 
and "non-magical," could leave substantial room for superstition. This was true sometimes, just as it 
is true that a belief in occultism and horoscopes coexisted with the birth of modern science in 
Europe and is alive and well in parts of the Western world to this day. 

n Kepler was one of the greatest mathematical astronomers who ever lived, but there was also a 

mystical side to his cosmological ideas. As imperial mathematician in the 1600s he had to give 
astrological advice to the Holy Roman Emperor as a part of his duties, even though he himself was 
rather skeptical of horoscopes. Newton spent nearly as much time on alchemy or looking for hidden 
codes in the Bible as he did on mathematics. In the late 1800s the English chemist William Crookes, 
known for the Crookes tube, was a gifted scientist in addition to being passionately interested in 
spiritualism, including the possibility of talking to the dead. Science and non-science can and do 
coexist, occasionally even within the same individual. 

And yet, there is something special about the European legacy of critical reason and the belief that 
reason, logic and public debate can be used to advance truth and insight into the natural world and 
the human world alike. After you subtract astrology and the notion that individual destinies are 
determined by spirits and stars, a belief that has been and partly still is very common around the 
world, a core of rationalism will emerge as one of the critical legacies of the ancient Greeks, 
running as a golden thread from them to modern Europe. It is easy to underestimate the importance 
of this, just as it is easy to take for granted many of the other unique advances made by Europeans, 
but we need to remember that there was never anything self-evident or inevitable about them. In the 
end, a (largely) rational understanding of the natural world was achieved in one civilization and in 
one civilization only: the European one. 


Preparing for Ragnarok 

Monday, May 02, 2011 

Predicting the future is a difficult exercise. 

The City of God was written by Augustine of Hippo soon after the city of Rome was sacked by the 
Visigoths in AD 410. This shocked him and his contemporaries, yet he apparently did not 
understand that he was watching the death of an entire civilization. Augustine himself died while 
the Vandals were about to sack his city. 

The Scottish economist Adam Smith published his The Wealth of Nations in 1776 during the early 
stages of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, yet he did not see this world-historical transformation 
coming. Augustine and Smith were both very smart men, but even they could not foresee the near 
future or understand the full force of changes that was underway in their own lifetimes. Individuals 
who were much cleverer than I have been spectacularly wrong about the future. There is a very 
substantial risk that I will make the same mistake now, but I'll try. 

I have increasingly come to suspect that Western civilization is not merely under threat, but that it is 
in fact already dead. It probably died many years ago; we just didn't notice at the time. The West is 
currently in such an advanced state of decline that a collapse of sorts can no longer be avoided. The 
established momentum is too great, and the ruling oligarchs are not even trying to hit the brakes. A 
collapse will happen. It is only a question of how we deal with this, and whether we manage to 
carve out a good-sized homeland for our people afterwards. 

I believe that the European Union will disintegrate within the coming generation, that the USA in its 
present form will not survive his century and that we will be facing a full structural, political, 
ideological and economic crisis within the coming generation followed by serious social and ethnic 
strife. While the twentieth century was the bloodiest century in human history so far, I fear that the 
twenty-first century will eventually surpass it, if for no other reason than the world is much more 
populous than it was in 1914 or 1939. 

As Jacques Barzun, the French-born American teacher, author and historian of ideas, puts it in 
From Dawn to Decadence, "How a revolution erupts from a commonplace event — tidal wave 
from a ripple — is cause for endless astonishment. Neither Luther in 1517 nor the men who 
gathered at Versailles in 1789 intended at first what they produced at last. Even less did the Russian 
Liberals who made the revolution of 1917 foresee what followed. All were as ignorant as everybody 
else of how much was about to be destroyed. Nor could they guess what feverish feelings, what 
strange behavior ensue when revolution, great or short-lived, is in the air." Mr. Barzun also reminds 
us that "When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent. The term is 
not a slur; it is a technical label. A decadent culture offers opportunities chiefly to the satirist." The 
West today is clearly decadent. 

The Russian-born author Alexander Boot was a philology graduate of Moscow University under the 
Communist system during the Cold War and lectured on English and American literature before 
getting into trouble with the KGB, the secret police of the Soviet Union. He emigrated to the West 
in 1973, only to discover that the West he admired and was seeking no longer existed. This inspired 
a life-long quest for an explanation, some of it detailed in his book How the West Was Lost. He sees 
Western history as a prolonged internal struggle between two different beings which he calls 


Modman and Westman. Saint Paul was a Greco-Roman Christian and the first Westman. Modman 
saw himself as close to divine; Jesus Christ, God as man, had been replaced by Modman as God, 
but the old God had to die first. 

He believes that non-European immigrants serve as a protected class used as a battering ram by the 
ruling elites to systematically smash and demolish the nation-states of the white West. Laws against 
"racism" are therefore not meant to punish criminal acts, but rather to intimidate any opposition 
among Europeans by always keeping whites fearful and mentally on the defensive. "They are on the 
books to reassert the power of the state to control not just the citizens' actions but, more important, 
their thoughts." Boot warns that "A state capable of prosecuting one person for his thoughts is 
equally capable of prosecuting thousands, and will predictably do so when it has consolidated its 
power enough to get away with any outrage." For this reason, the author predicts that "more and 
more people in Western Europe and North America will be sent to prison not for something they 
have done, but for something they have said." 

Alexander Boot's basic conclusion is that the West is dead, but as a Christian man he believes in 
resurrection and in the possibility of a life after death. Perhaps that is not a bad summary. 

According to the French writer Guillaume Faye , for the first time humanity as a whole is threatened 

by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to begin in the decade before 2020 — a crisis provoked by 

degradation of the ecosystems and geopolitical contests for scarce resources like agricultural land, 

oil, and above all water; by the fragility of an international economic 

order based on speculation and the massive indebtedness of democratic 

states; by the return of epidemics; by the rise of terrorism and nuclear 

proliferation; by the growing aggressiveness of Islam's world 

offensive; and by the dramatic ageing of European populations, whose 

below replacement-level birth rates are confronted with rapidly 

growing masses of young people in the dysfunctional countries of the 

global South, coupled with mass migrations to the North. 

This convergence of catastrophes will mark the transition from one era 

to another. The USA will most likely cease to be the leading world 

power by mid-century, perhaps cease to exist at all in its present form. 

The global center of power will then move back to Eurasia, where it 

has almost always been previously. The strongest power will probably 

be China or what Faye calls "Euro-Siberia" — a federated alliance 

between the peoples of Europe plus Russia. He doesn't think this is 

literally the end of the world, merely the end of the world as we know it. Something new may arise 

from these events, since Europe is a civilization of metamorphosis. 

Faye predicts two possibilities for European civilization over the coming century: regeneration 
based on a resurgence of ancestral values, or else disappearance. Europe, especially the western half 
of the Continent, is currently being invaded. This is coupled with an incredible masochism on the 
part of Europeans themselves. Only a terrifying crisis can awaken them, and war is the most 
merciless of selective forces; a people that abandons its will to power inevitably perishes. A "mental 
AIDS," a virus of nihilism, has severely weakened their natural defenses. Consequently, Europeans 
have succumbed to self-extinction. The primary symptom of this is "xenophilia," a systematic 
preference for the Other over the Self. 

The current advanced state of decadence owes much to the secularization of Christian charity and 


its modern egalitarian offshoot, human rights. In the widest possible sense it was the same 
civilizational genius that gave the world the concepts of universal gravitation and universal human 
rights. After the unprecedented successes of the Scientific Revolution, post-Enlightenm